J Morgan: MIT Team book review

[J Morgan]

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.

[phantom007]

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

[Parker]

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. :-)

[J Morgan]

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.

[phantom007]

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.

[Shadow witness]

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...

[Norm Wattenberger]

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

BJStats

[methodman]

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.

[John May]

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.

[Sun Runner]

.. what is the point? Are you saying that the book is a good factual treastie on BJ; one to be read and relied upon? Nobody believes that; I'm sure including you and Mr. Blackwood. So what's the point.

You quote Mr. Blackwood as saying ..

> "They go from top bets of 2K to three hands of 10K"

What he actually said was ..

"They go from top bets of 2K to three hands of 10K seemingly on a whim."

Big difference. Kinda playing fast and loose with the truth if you ask me. I don't want to re-count the other similiar bad examples of Mr. Blackwood's review you cite, but this isn't the only one.

You do go on, by aggressivly dis-paraging Mr. Blackwoods review, to give the impression that an individual described in the book by the charector Kevin Lewis -who is a young, womanizing, lush, routinely muling thousands of dollars in cash - would be tolerated on your team. Frankly, I doubt it. You are, no doubt, smarter than to allow that to continue for long.

And then you call out Stanford Wong. Geez. Maybe he hasn't played in a few years but I would still gamble his credentials run at least as deep as yours.

So all I am left with is you've got a hard one for some guy who wrote a book and, by his own admission, didn't do so good .. and for Stanford Wong.

What's up with that?

SR

[Parker]

> 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.

And I'll make an exception and allow your post. You know full well why you are less than welcome around here.

However, I believe anyone should have a right to defend his point of view, so have at it.

Just try to keep it polite, guys. :-)

[J Morgan]

> .. what is the point?

Simple: Blackwood says the story is unbelievable, and cites several examples, but virtually all of his examples are in fact totally reasonable.

> "They go from top bets of 2K to three
> hands of 10K seemingly on a whim."

Blackwood is the one saying "seemingly on a whim." He seems to find this bet jump unbelievable. It's not. Could they be overbetting Kelly? Maybe. Who cares? The point is that the bet levels and jumps are completely reasonable.

> I don't want
> to re-count the other similiar bad examples
> of Mr. Blackwood's review you cite,

Please do.

> You do go on, by aggressivly dis-paraging
> Mr. Blackwoods review,

What do you expect? Blackwood is apparently a typical low-level counter. These counters spread green to low black and make a few bucks; there's nothing wrong with that. But when these counters run around saying, "This is how it is. I know how it works. Etc.," then they're wrong. Then they criticize the book by saying that it is unbelievable. Sure, parts of it are unbelievable to the close-minded.

Example: I hear time and again on these boards how you can be backed off spreading $5-$20 at the El Cortez. Maybe true for some players. But what if I told you that four skilled players took nearly $14K out of there in about three hours. Is that unbelievable? If that were posted on Wong's cite, the poster would immediately be labeled a troll.

> impression that an individual described in
> the book by the charector Kevin Lewis -who
> is a young, womanizing, lush, routinely
> muling thousands of dollars in cash - would
> be tolerated on your team.

I don't have the type of team that is described in the book, but I have played with plenty of BPs who were far from perfect, including excessive tipping and drug/alcohol use. There are many reasons you use a particular BP.

> And then you call out Stanford Wong.

I said that he is not a working pro and that his review of the book was comparably flawed to Blackwood's.

> Maybe he hasn't played in a few years but I
> would still gamble his credentials

Credentials as what? As a publisher? As an author? Or as a player/working pro?

I would not gamble on the first two. Stanford is one of the major contributors to the literature and the business, but I don't think Stanford would gamble on the last one. He is the first to admit that he is not a professional player, and I don't think he claims that he ever was.

But Wong's got nothing to do with this. The point is that Blackwood's review of the MIT book is way off the mark. Furthermore, I don't hear many pros disagreeing with me on this one, so what does that tell you?

[J Morgan]

> I'm almost certain the universal opinion
> here is that bet jumping is unwise.
> Aggression is not the issue-its just stupid.

Who cares if it's stupid or not? Blackwood's saying he doesn't believe it. I 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.

You're absolutely wrong on this one. Why not give my partner that money to carry? As far as trust goes, I'd trust my partners with my entire bankroll. As far as risk of robbery, oh well, there are times when we walk into a game and we need the cash on hand. Partners have handed me $50K in cash to carry. Why shouldn't this happen? Besides, this isn't a question of "should." Blackwood suggests that this is unbelievable. It's not.

> 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.

Agreed that it's not a great situation, but for a given play, the best guy for the job might happen to have a substance problem. For our type of team/play, I would have taken El Burro for a night over almost every Green Chipper. Again, what's Blackwood's point--that this is stupid, or that it's unbelievable?

> 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.

Are you trying to lecture me on the math of tipping? Some players tip too much. Sometimes this is a problem, sometimes it's not. I had a partner who tipped $5000 over 7.5 hours of play. That was a lot, but it was not more than our expectation, and I didn't "kick him off my team" for it.

> 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 agree the book didn't go into much detail, but the point is that it can be done, and some MIT guys do have skill in this area, so again, that part of the story is not unbelievable.

> 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

Where do you get your information? From the Internet? You can speculate all you want about my life, but trust me on this one: You are making yourself look like an idiot by making claims that you have no first-hand knowledge of. You're better off sticking to your strong suit--math. (Ditto for MathProf.)

> 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.

As a matter of fact, the large teams are NOT as active as they once were, but the MIT book is about past events. Again, none of the issues that Blackwood mentioned are unbelievable. Now, there may be other areas that are unbelievable, but he hasn't mentioned them yet.

>When the big money moved out of
> Nevada I stopped going there so I don't
> know.

Gosh, I hate it when milk comes pouring out of my nose, don't you?