I was originally going to write this as two seperate posts, but after a little thought I have changed my mind and am now going to post it as one single post, however with two parts.

Sorry, I want to write a short aisde(or something) here. I am watching a program(Cheats and Scams 2, or something like that) on the Travel Channel about Vegas and gambling and the final segment concerned card counters. A few BJ "celebrities" like Arnold Snyder, James Grosjean, Rick "Night Train" Blaine were featured in interviews. Bill Zender and some other security agents and consultants were also featured. But anyway...

Basically, what I was concerned with was that the program said that surveillance has become very high-tech and savvy that any cheating or advantage play, namely card counting would be immediately spotted and prohibited. The program made it sound like it was virtually impossible to count cards successfully due to increased casino knowledge and scrutiny. Is this the case, and how concerned should I be with this, considering that I am planning to use this technique when I play having the desire to win?

As it has been told to me by some others(skeptics) before, when I proposed that I could win at blackjack by counting cards: "The casinos can read the books too". And when the casinos are privy to the methods which can be used to "beat the game", then if/when it can spot them, it will of course take the necessary steps to stop that from happening.

Okay, how can I ask this question, get a serious answer and still retain my respect as someone who views the game from the perspective of a traditional card counter? For me the answer is that although I am(will be, hopefully) a (successful) card counter, I consider myself to be first and foremost an advantage player: someone who looks to beat the game through skill by any and all legal means, whatever they may be.

I have just read(re-read) a book titled "Twenty-first Century Blackjack: A Strategy for a New Millennium" by Walter Thomason, with an introduction by Frank Scoblete. Now, I want to state clearly and upfront that this book is about a betting system(positive progressive) that the author attempts to justify through analysis and simulation as useful for winning play and to which I must admit that while I was, and still am skeptical, was at least thought provoking, if not completely persuasive. The results of his analyses(carried out in collaboration with Fred Renzy and Bootlegger among others) is that the progressive betting system which the author had created and proposed was found to be more financially lucrative in that it either made more money, or lost less, than either flat betting or card counting. The comparison of the betting methods, "systems" was based on the simulated play of a limited number of hands(5,000) for which ground rules were established. The most important of these rules in my view is that three different betting systems(flat betting, progressive betting and card counting) would be used with the provision that they would be used strictly with no deviation from that dictated by the system, that only one hand would be dealt(for all three betting types) and would by played by a specified set of basic strategy rules having the results recorded so that if the hand won, than all three bets won and likewise for a hand lost which made the only variation the style and amount of money bet on the hand by the three respective systems.

Basically, the study controlled every variable except for the betting style and amount, which would be dictated by the three respective betting systems. If more specific information were required, I could provide this, the betting prodecure of the progressive system(when to raise, when to drop, to what level and with what limits, etc.), along with the prodcedures of the card counting system.

In the end, the bottom line is that the progressive betting system was found to be "better" than the others, flat betting and card counting after multiple simulations and analyses. He then goes on to explain both logically and empirically(based upon the analysis) why this is the case.

After saying all of this, and with great difficulty, I offer my profuse apologies and recommend that you read the book if you are interested and so inclined. And no, I am not selling the book, nor do I endorse it(beyond what was mentioned above) in any way. :-)

My fundamental question is: How can this be true?

And my secondary question is: If a positive progressive betting system is not better than card counting, then is it at least better than flat betting? And if I were to use a progressive betting procedure, then while I may not win, I will/should not lose more than I would by using a flat betting scheme, however having the chance of winning big with a "hot" streak. Correct?

Now, part two.

My question is about getting rated. I have heard/read two different views on this, one being that you should(even as a card counter/advantage player), and another that you should not. I again want to say that I have never played before and it will be very much a new and learning experience for me, but that being said I also plan to play to win. By most views I will probably be playing for small stakes(nickles or red chips I believe) as that is all my bankroll will allow, but given my playing experience, there is a very real possibility that I may lose and think it wise to take advantage of comps although they will likey be of little value(drinks, or maybe a cheap meal) and have relatively little value to me as I greatly prefer cash.

What makes this a difficult question, for me at least, is that I do wish to play successfully for higher stakes at some point(if it is a possibility for me) and do wish to remain anonymous for this reason. Also, I know that you should not play for extended periods of time, win excessive amounts of money, etc., which are the general card counters rules that I plan to adhere to.

With these considerations taken into mind, what would you say about getting rated? It is a complicated question, is it not?

And lastly, to tie this whole post all together, the reason why I wrote this as one post rather than two seperate as I was going to originally, is that I was thinking that maybe I would use a progressive betting system initially while being rated for both camoflauge purposes and to get off a flat bet, thus increasing my average hourly wager.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. And thanks,
Desi. D.

P.S. For those of you who are familiar with me and some of my other posts, I want to say that no, I am not about to play like my uncle(not after ridiculing him), but it is just that this book which I have read is very thought provoking for any open-minded and serious BJ player, to say the least.

And finally. Yes Bettie, I do consider myself to be an AP, even though I will probably play the slots. :-)