J Morgan: MIT Team book review

[Norm Wattenberger]

> I thought it was obvious I was exaggerating
> for effect.

Yes, you always exaggerate for effect. That's the problem.

> I didn't know ***** or what exactly
> addictions he may or may not have. He did
> seem to be a knowledgeable advantage player
> based on what I read of his posts, whose
> death is a tragedy. I was not implying he
> had a crack cocaine addiction. But I think
> you understand that, at least when you've
> cooled down a bit.

(Ignoring the supercilious insult) That's exactly what you implied.

> In more general terms, it seems obvious to
> me that serious drug use is pretty much
> incompatable with being alive, let alone
> anything as intellectually demanding as
> advantage play. The key phrase I used is
> that it is not in the interests of the
> addict for his addiction to be tolerated.

What you said is the person cannot be trusted and should be thrown off the team. And you added and adjective or two above. Forget Uston, our current President used drugs. Our previous President used drugs. And, oh the guy that most people voted for President used drugs. If you wish to base your estimation of a man on such superficial attributes as going to a strip club or drinking, that is your business. But to state that all team leaders must follow your your lead just doesn't wash.

[John May]

> (Ignoring the supercilious insult) That's
> exactly what you implied.

No, it damn well was not. You think I'd make light of someone's death from drug use? I'm not a monster.
Btw there wasn't any insult.

> What you said is the person cannot be
> trusted and should be thrown off the team.
> And you added and adjective or two above.
> Forget Uston, our current President used
> drugs. Our previous President used drugs.
> And, oh the guy that most people voted for
> President used drugs.

I had the odd toke myself on occassion. This isn't a moral issue. Its just one of effectiveness. A president who has a wayward past may be forgiven, but if he started shooting up in the oval office he'd be impeached. Similarly a drug user jeopardizes everyone's bankroll if he's high while playing.

>If you wish to base
> your estimation of a man on such superficial
> attributes as going to a strip club or
> drinking, that is your business. But to
> state that all team leaders must follow your
> your lead just doesn't wash.

Well if that teams goes bankrupt because of expenses it only has itself to blame. Some kind of centralized discipline has to be imposed on the team bankroll.

[DD']

Let's say that you are heads up and you are cutting the ace. If you are very, very accurate you can play just one hand. It is next card out. If you are not as accurate you can play a second buffer hand to catch it, or you can play two big bets and cut your edge. Sometimes you'll miss and the dealer will catch it. But if you simply know it is one of the next five, you can play two hands and have an 80% chance of catching it. A guy who is not very good might miss by 5 cards. He could miss the round altogether. Test yourself many times and record your average error. If you miss by more than 2 cards on average then keep practicing.

[Norm Wattenberger]

If you can 'exaggerate for effect' I can too. Although I'll be damned if I see the purpose.

[Brick]

Let's get back to the original format.

Sun Runner is trying to tell me 2k to 30k is no big deal.

1)It is a big deal.

2)It will draw attention.

3)Risk of ruin has just taken a huge increase.

ps.constantly disposing and replacing team members is risky. You get your rotten apples with good apples and things can get out of line.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> Sun Runner is trying to tell me 2k to 30k is
> no big deal.

> 1)It is a big deal.

To whom? You need to define the exact circumstances.

> 2)It will draw attention.

Well, there are two different scenarios. One is that the max bet changes in different settings at different times. This will not draw attention. Second is one person jumping his bet. I don't think that was the original gist. But even if it were, it still isn't out of the bounds of advantage play - particularly for teams. Obviously you can't sit at a table for an hour under normal circumstances jumping your bet dramatically. But, is this the scenario under discussion?

> 3)Risk of ruin has just taken a huge
> increase.

Why, because the spread is high? Wonging is infinite spread. You need more info to calculate effect on RoR. In particular, the relation between the max bet and the bankroll.

> ps.constantly disposing and replacing team
> members is risky. You get your rotten apples
> with good apples and things can get out of
> line.

But this is one style of team organization. There are some very large teams, some with high turnover. There exist advantages and disadvantages.

[Norm Wattenberger]

> But if you simply know
> it is one of the next five, you can play two
> hands and have an 80% chance of catching it.

And if you don?t see it, guess where it is

There were some interesting studies some years back on teaching very young children to instantly count large numbers of objects. They would show a child a picture of 183 dots and the subject would immediately say 183. Clearly the counting method was not serial. Back in the days where I played marathon poker games, I remember if I picked up the deck and a card was missing, I was immediately aware. This is without specific practice, concentration or sight and I didn?t consider it a ?skill.? It just didn?t feel right. It?s amazing how exacting the mind can be. I would expect the most difficult part of cutting to the exact card is making the cut look natural.

Regards,
norm

[Kevin Blackwood]

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.

http://www.kevinblackwood.com

[Kevin Blackwood]

Kevin Lewis stated in the MIT book that they could cut exactly 52 cards every time, which is very hard for me to believe.

[Shadow witness]

I like your open way of educating the casinos. They won`t even need to go to school. I would like to remind you that you are on an OPEN BOARD, let`s keep them idiot please. I am not sure here that the post buster is doing a service to the BJ community...

[Orange Cnty KO]

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.

[John May]

> Kevin Lewis stated in the MIT book that they
> could cut exactly 52 cards every time, which
> is very hard for me to believe.

A slight exaggeration but probably not far off.
I can do this about 95% of the time. The 5% is because this is very sensitive to physical casino conditions. Cards can expand fractionally due to temperature and minor crimping by dealers who riffle too violently can also mess things up.
I don't believe any really does it 100%. But you can get close, and its not nearly as difficult as you might think if you know the "trick".

A couple of additional points here-I don't think pro steer teams use the seat-of-the-pants stab-it-in-and-hope method, and if they do, they shouldn't. Another point, the ace as first card example is often used to illustrate the method but as a team move its less than optimal.

Because your kelly bet size is so large you won't be able to take full advantage of tens and aces as first card, and large bets correlated with an ace or paint as first card may get you in jail, even though this method is legal (they'll say you marked the card). Its often better to use a third base bettor to steer the dealer an unfavourable card thereby spreading the edge across the table, and thereby allowing several max bets to be placed instead of just one. This method is known as "early anchor".

[Rhetorich]

> Thought the sarge on HSB always said,
> "hey, let's be careful out there."
> ......bill

True. The older one's brain gets, the more it seems like lawn mulch