I just read a review of the MIT book by someone posting as "KevinBlackwood" on bj21. I assume this is the same Kevin Blackwood who wrote the novel about a card counter, or some such.
I don't know any way to sugarcoat this, so I'll just say it. From his review, it is obvious to me that Mr. Blackwood is a moron who has little experience with blackjack and advantage play. Virtually all of his comments in that post are absurd. Now I know not to bother buying his novel.
Mr. Blackwood's novel "Blackjack Autumn" is not necessarily enjoyable...I actually found it depressing. In both my regular job and my hobby (BJ), I am alone and on-the-road...reading his book "brought lots of things home", albeit, not me.
However, lots of enjoyable stories, and as a CC, can see myself in many of them. If you do not want to buy the book, then maybe a copy is available at the library. Worth your read.
phantom007
Kevin Blackwood is the author of a novel called The Counter. It is a work of fiction, based in part on the author's experience as an advantage player. Some of the characters in the book appear to be based on real people. However, it is indeed fiction, and the author takes a bit of dramatic license in some areas. For example, the protagonist never has an extended losing streak. Nonetheless, I found it to be an entertaining read. My review of The Counter may be found in the Library.
Blackjack Autumn was written by Barry Meadow, and is a factual account of the author's attempt to play blackjack in every casino in Nevada. It reads like an extended trip report.
Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich, is the best-selling account of the MIT card counting teams. I have only read excerpts of this book. It purports to be a true story, but it appears that in some cases the author (a pulp fiction writer) may have either gotten a little creative or else didn't do his homework.
It would be helpful if J Morgan would provide specific examples of things in Kevin Blackwood's review that he found "absurd," rather than simply calling him names.
Interesting scenario we have here: One author attacking another author's review of yet a third author's work. :-)
Thank you for the clarification. Apologies to Mr. Blackwood.
I FEEL REALLY STUPID!
Excue me, I think I will click on this pop-up ad for penis enlargement.
And, maybe it is time to cover my red-brick house with Aluminum siding!
phantom007.
If people like John May actually need me to specify the points of Mr. Blackwood's that are ridiculous, here goes:
"He was the BP and hung out at the bar with his entire bankroll (30K) in chips. That in itself is pretty laughable as no one would ever"
In fact, a BP hanging out at a bar might very easily have his entire bankroll in chips. Chips are often far more convenient than cash in a casino environment.
" convert cash into chips for numerous reasons, such as the hassles of CTR?s at every stop, as well as time and exposure of buying and cashing out."
Maintaining a large chip inventory is largely to AVOID CTRs, and avoid the exposure and time of buying in and cashing out repeatedly. Just play with the chips! What is Blackwood's point? There is no problem here.
"They go from top bets of 2K to three hands of 10K"
Yeah? What's the problem with that? Do Blackwood and other readers realize how AGGRESSIVE these teams (MIT, Greek, etc.) are? I see nothing unbelievable about a player jumping his bet to 3x$10K.
"and they supposedly give 21 year old kids duffel bags with several hundred thousand dollars."
Yeah? Newsflash: Team members are routinely given large sums of cash to walk around with. If I, as an individual player, could give a partner $20K or something to walk around with, it's entirely plausible for the MIT team to give a guy a few hundred K, especially if the player might bet as high as 3x$10K. What does Blackwood expect them to do?
"I can?t believe there is any team in the entire world that would be stupid enough to bankroll a young lush like Kevin Lewis"
Few BPs are perfect, and all teams discover this, but a particular leak does not mean that a player would automatically be cut loose. Our friend, the late El Burro, drank and used drugs, but we all played with him and let him handle cash. Despite his flaws, he was a good player, and we trusted him with money.
"who bragged about tipping cocktail waitresses black chips and routinely going to strip bars and slipping C-notes to his favorite girls like he owned a printing press."
And? Maybe this is a leak, but you know how many blackjack players go to strip bars and tip waitresses heavily? What's Blackwood's point? That this isn't credible?
"and how they would cut exactly 52 cards. That in itself is nearly impossible and I seriously doubt the veracity of that story."
Blackwood knows nothing about cutting theory, so there's not much point arguing this except that the book is far more credible than Blackwood on this topic.
"and it would be ludicrous to not want it in your hand."
Blackwood needs to stop there before embarrassing himself further.
"But I quickly tired of a bunch of self-proclaimed math geniuses who make it sound like they invented team play and the BP routine,"
They were young guys. What do you expect? If you think the MIT guys are abrasive, what'll you meet the Greeks.
"I recently had the pleasure of dining with Stanford Wong, and he totally agreed the book was unbelievable."
Wong is not a professional player. I've got a newsflash for you: Wong's knowledge of the actual goings on of working pros is apparently no greater than the mass of Green Chippers to whom he markets his website. When Wong reviewed BDTH, he made some of the same naive criticisms.
As for Mr. May, who likes to divert every issue, I never said that the earnings rate of MIT players was high. That and the other points May mentions (on bj21, where he knows I won't respond--how convenient) are NOT points raised by Blackwood. I never even said that the book is credible or good. But to the extent that the book is incredible or bad, it is not due to the points Blackwood raised. The funny thing is that the exact things that most low-level players like Blackwood find unbelievable are usually the most accurate parts of the story, such as the carrying of huge sums of cash.
By the way, John, Ben Mezrich is just a writer, so whether he can count his way out of a paper bag doesn't mean much as far as the exploits of the MIT team.
Very well said ! Most people you mention in your post have absolutely no clue about hi-level play. But honestly, I think you are loosing your time trying to educate them. This is the kind of stuff you think is impossible unless you`ve seen it with your own eyes. Frustrating...
The example of 30K in chips was from Poker Nation, not the MIT book. I wasn't very clear in my example there, as the author states they took their entire bankroll, converted it all into chips at one casino and sat at the bar waiting for a RC of plus 60. I am well aware that many keep thousands in chips, but that is not what happened here. A team took 100% of their BR and bought chips with the entire amount before playing their first hand.
On cutting, Lewis says they could cut exactly 52 cards every time. I could be wrong on that one, but I still find that hard to believe. Hitting within a card or two is possible, but 52 every time?
Mr. Morgan, have you actually read the book? I am not disparaging the MIT team, although they were by and large a cocky bunch. I just don't think BDTH is a credible account.
BDTH is loosely based on facts and presented in typical Hollywood fashion that exaggerates stories in an attempt to entertain the masses who might otherwise yawn at a 100% non-fiction account since the truth is often quite boring.
Professional poker players are insulted by the movie (and book) Rounders for the same reasons mentioned above. I read BDTH and found it entertaining and amusing. There is no mention of a losing session in the book until page 102. Well, isn't that special? Maybe the team was 5 or 6 standard deviations to the right up until page 102.
Can someone cut exactly 52 cards most of the time? Absolutely. Can someone cut exactly 52 cards every time? Perhaps, but extremely unlikely IMO. In fact, I'm willing to wager on this one. Let's identify the best cutter in the world, and I'll wager that he cannot cut exactly 52 cards 100 times out of 100 attempts. But really, who cares?
So, why all the hostility? Why does one author insist on insulting other authors? Why do some feel an overwhelming urge to argue and discredit, regardless of the topic? Morgan, all serious professionals know that you're the smartest guy out there. Let's take a vote - you'll win hands down. You have nothing more to prove to those who matter. You've got the money, you've got the fame, and you've got the respect of your peers. So, stop the flame wars - they only serve to diminish your own credibility.
I was writing a book about never-before-published advantage play techniques. It would be understood only by advanced players, the answers hidden in charts and text too complicated for casino employees to understand. Then I had a brainstorm: instead of creating more competitors (by educating other players) and possibly educating some smart casino employees, why not just spank the casinos and take pride in that? Maybe I'll finish that book, but it's not likely. I'm having too much fun getting the money and laughing at those who spend ridiculous amounts of time on the BJ websites proclaiming their expertise.
It's rather unfortunate that some players have tremendous ego needs and crave recognition. Often the by-product of those needs is educating the casinos about weaknesses that are only exploited by serious players.
Hi
We met at a GC party a few years ago, wonder if you could bung me an email to [email protected] I have an unrelated question.
D.
> BDTH is loosely based on facts and presented
> in typical Hollywood fashion that
> exaggerates stories in an attempt to
> entertain the masses who might otherwise
> yawn at a 100% non-fiction account since the
> truth is often quite boring.
> Professional poker players are insulted by
> the movie (and book) Rounders for the same
> reasons mentioned above. I read BDTH and
> found it entertaining and amusing. There is
> no mention of a losing session in the book
> until page 102. Well, isn't that special?
> Maybe the team was 5 or 6 standard
> deviations to the right up until page 102.
> Can someone cut exactly 52 cards most of the
> time? Absolutely. Can someone cut exactly 52
> cards every time? Perhaps, but extremely
> unlikely IMO. In fact, I'm willing to wager
> on this one. Let's identify the best cutter
> in the world, and I'll wager that he cannot
> cut exactly 52 cards 100 times out of 100
> attempts. But really, who cares?
> So, why all the hostility? Why does one
> author insist on insulting other authors?
> Why do some feel an overwhelming urge to
> argue and discredit, regardless of the
> topic? Morgan, all serious professionals
> know that you're the smartest guy out there.
> Let's take a vote - you'll win hands down.
> You have nothing more to prove to those who
> matter. You've got the money, you've got the
> fame, and you've got the respect of your
> peers. So, stop the flame wars - they only
> serve to diminish your own credibility.
> I was writing a book about
> never-before-published advantage play
> techniques. It would be understood only by
> advanced players, the answers hidden in
> charts and text too complicated for casino
> employees to understand. Then I had a
> brainstorm: instead of creating more
> competitors (by educating other players) and
> possibly educating some smart casino
> employees, why not just spank the casinos
> and take pride in that? Maybe I'll finish
> that book, but it's not likely. I'm having
> too much fun getting the money and laughing
> at those who spend ridiculous amounts of
> time on the BJ websites proclaiming their
> expertise.
> It's rather unfortunate that some players
> have tremendous ego needs and crave
> recognition. Often the by-product of those
> needs is educating the casinos about
> weaknesses that are only exploited by
> serious players.
In any field of endeavor, many expert methods, insights and truths are far from self-evident. And many explanations short-cut fact with superficiality. The example I often use is Ptolemy and Copernicus. Ptolemy is oft criticized for saying the Sun goes around the Earth. In fact, in school I was taught that Ptolemy was wrong for saying that the planets move in epicycles around the Earth and that Copernicus was right that the sun was at the ?center.? I was taught this long after Einstein essentially said one was as right as the other. But, Ptolemy came up with working charts 1,400 years before Copernicus. So why do our school belittle the Almagest?
Kevin?s work is fiction. Pure truth can be boring ? so I have no problem with embellishment that does not alter the underlying concepts. But, I do have a problem when barbs are made in a reality-based piece of fiction based on a lack of knowledge. (This ain't Harry Potter.)
A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope, 1711 - An Essay on Criticism
THE TEAM IS REAL/STILL ALIVE
> Not to the large extent it ever was though.
>The book is fact and based on a team that made millions playing 6dk in Vegas,its often the doubters that lack the true skills.
>Any other publisher of player cutting it down is crazy.
a truly remarkable story:
and a far better bet than the $100 eye in the sky book. We all can learn.
> THE TEAM IS REAL/STILL ALIVE
There exists plenty of new blood for the large/renewable team concept. The casinos, unable to find the silver bullet, will concentrate on bothering more obvious targets.
I'm responding here because James specifically suggests I posted at bj21 where he won't respond. I didn't post here because I'm tired of my posts being busted but I'll make an exception in this case.
> If people like John May actually need me to
> specify the points of Mr. Blackwood's that
> are ridiculous, here goes:
> "He was the BP and hung out at the bar
> with his entire bankroll (30K) in chips.
> That in itself is pretty laughable as no one
> would ever"
> In fact, a BP hanging out at a bar might
> very easily have his entire bankroll in
> chips. Chips are often far more convenient
> than cash in a casino environment.
Actually, with most of these practical points I agree these things can and do happen. But they probably shouldn't.
> " convert cash into chips for numerous
> reasons, such as the hassles of CTR?s at
> every stop, as well as time and exposure of
> buying and cashing out."
> Maintaining a large chip inventory is
> largely to AVOID CTRs, and avoid the
> exposure and time of buying in and cashing
> out repeatedly. Just play with the chips!
> What is Blackwood's point? There is no
> problem here.
> "They go from top bets of 2K to three
> hands of 10K"
> Yeah? What's the problem with that? Do
> Blackwood and other readers realize how
> AGGRESSIVE these teams (MIT, Greek, etc.)
> are? I see nothing unbelievable about a
> player jumping his bet to 3x$10K.
I'm almost certain the universal opinion here is that bet jumping is unwise. Aggression is not the issue-its just stupid. You don't want to trigger a shuffle-up. If you want to be aggressive parlay up from min to max. In BJA Schlesinger identifies bet jumping as a primary sin, something I actually agree with him on, and which is borne out by virtually all other quality blackjack literature. I think Blackwood is reprising that belief, its far from unreasonable.
> "and they supposedly give 21 year old
> kids duffel bags with several hundred
> thousand dollars."
> Yeah? Newsflash: Team members are routinely
> given large sums of cash to walk around
> with. If I, as an individual player, could
> give a partner $20K or something to walk
> around with, it's entirely plausible for the
> MIT team to give a guy a few hundred K,
> especially if the player might bet as high
> as 3x$10K. What does Blackwood expect them
> to do?
Yes James, but perhaps it wasn't a very good idea to give your partner 20K to walk round with. Again, this does happen, but it probably shouldn't.
> "I can?t believe there is any team in
> the entire world that would be stupid enough
> to bankroll a young lush like Kevin
> Lewis"
> Few BPs are perfect, and all teams discover
> this, but a particular leak does not mean
> that a player would automatically be cut
> loose. Our friend, the late El Burro, drank
> and used drugs, but we all played with him
> and let him handle cash. Despite his flaws,
> he was a good player, and we trusted him
> with money.
You must separate your bankroll from a drug user or heavy drinker. This is just common sense. You cannot rationalize this or ignore it because the guy is your friend, its in his interest also. Most teams would certainly not tolerate this.
> "who bragged about tipping cocktail
> waitresses black chips and routinely going
> to strip bars and slipping C-notes to his
> favorite girls like he owned a printing
> press."
> And? Maybe this is a leak, but you know how
> many blackjack players go to strip bars and
> tip waitresses heavily? What's Blackwood's
> point? That this isn't credible?
Personally, I'd throw a guy off the team if he visited a strip joint. Its too easy to piss away $10,000 in a night in one of those places after a big win, you need more self-control than that, and self-control is best excersized by avoiding temptation.
Regarding tipping, its the basic issue that advantage players don't tip because that costs them expectation. You aren't an advantage player if you tip away your expectation.
> "and how they would cut exactly 52
> cards. That in itself is nearly impossible
> and I seriously doubt the veracity of that
> story."
> Blackwood knows nothing about cutting
> theory, so there's not much point arguing
> this except that the book is far more
> credible than Blackwood on this topic.
Its certainly possible to cut 52 cards exactly with less than a card's margin of error. But the book doesn't demonstrate that the MIT team had that expertise or knew how to get that type of accuracy. In fact, I think that is very unlikely.
>"I recently had the pleasure of dining with >Stanford Wong, and he totally agreed the book >was unbelievable."
>Wong is not a professional player. I've got a >newsflash for you: Wong's knowledge of the >actual goings on of working pros is apparently >no greater than the mass of Green Chippers to >whom he markets his website. When Wong reviewed >BDTH, he made some of the same naive >criticisms.
Wong is not a professional player, but then neither are you ie you have or did until recently have a day job. Doubtless you have some means of rationalizing the semantics of that, but to my mind a professional gambler is someone who spends all their time gambling. I'm not the best gambler in the world but I never get the urge to do a bit of window cleaning on the side.
Its clear Wong does have extensive experience with teams of advantage players. Now, perhaps there are lots of blackjack teams out there running around with plastic bags full of hundreds of thousands of dollars high on crack cocaine jumping from min to max. When the big money moved out of Nevada I stopped going there so I don't know. But, if this is true, I think Kevin (and Wong) should be forgiven for believing otherwise.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks