JoeBlack: Don and Parker Respond

[98%]

> They did nothing but play straight,
> card-counting blackjack, as described in the
> Mezrich book and by Johnny Chan, in BJF.

On page 50 of the Fall 2002 BJ Forum, Johnny C. estimates that the MIT team won a little over $10,000,000 in a little over 20 years. That's about $500,000 a year, give or take. Peanuts. Plenty of professionals, be their careers in academia, medicine, law, investment banking or whatever, make that on their own. Some professional gamblers even make that on their own (sadly, I'm not one of those...yet). I think the most significant portion of that interview was contained in the last two paragraphs of page 47, though the entirety of the interview was an interesting read. I especially liked the part about how they eliminated indices from their play altogether and, instead, just relied on a +2 TC basic strategy.

For someone who is willing to put the time and effort into it, blackjack can be a great bankroll builder (though I don't suggest straight counting for the lone player on a small bank), but, somewhere along the journey down Blackjack Lane is the exit ramp leading up to the Road to Riches. It seems like many players miss the exit and never double back to find it.

To me, the funniest thing about 'Bringing Down the House' and the MIT team is that, when all the smoke has cleared, the book is going to make a lot more money than the blackjack team ever did. I wonder if Johnny C. has a stake in that.

> If only they had known all of the above,
> think of how well they might have done! :-)

No kidding. I'll bet most modern-day teams working at the level of MIT probably don't restrict themselves to straight counting.

[Don Schlesinger]

> On page 50 of the Fall 2002 BJ Forum, Johnny
> C. estimates that the MIT team won a little
> over $10,000,000 in a little over 20 years.
> That's about $500,000 a year, give or take.
> Peanuts. Plenty of professionals, be their
> careers in academia, medicine, law,
> investment banking or whatever, make that on
> their own.

Usually not at 21 years old! :-)

> To me, the funniest thing about 'Bringing
> Down the House' and the MIT team is that,
> when all the smoke has cleared, the book is
> going to make a lot more money than the
> blackjack team ever did.

You obviously don't know too much about blackjack books and the royalties they earn for their authors. This one will do well, to be sure, but "well" is quite relative.

Don

[98%]

They were 21 years old but I doubt Johnny C. was 21 for the entire 20 years of the MIT team's existence. In fact, most of them probably weren't. Ultimately, $10million over 20 years divided by who knows how many people is peanuts.

> You obviously don't know too much about
> blackjack books and the royalties they earn
> for their authors. This one will do well, to
> be sure, but "well" is quite
> relative.

The book climbed to #4 at amazon.com, and perhaps it went even higher, that was just the highest I ever saw it. Even as I compose this post, the book is sitting at #12 on the New York Times Bestseller list after having been out for quite a few weeks. I don't know where it topped out, but I imagine it was higher than #12. The book was featured in Wired magazine, on NPR, on MSNBC and on the Today show. That is a publicity blitz. MGM has decided to pick up the book to make a script for a movie with a high powered celebrity, Kevin Spacey, involved in the project. It is not going to have sales figures like 'Harry Potter' but it is certainly going to sell a lot. I do not know how much the author himself will earn, but I would say he stands a chance of passing the $10million mark depending on how the movie deal gets made.

I do not consider 'Bringing Down the House' a blackjack book in the same sense that something like 'Beat the Dealer' or 'Blackjack Attack' is. 'Bringing Down the House' is more like a pop-culture book and, as such, appeals to a much wider audience than a technical book about blackjack.

[John May]

> They did nothing but play straight,
> card-counting blackjack, as described in the
> Mezrich book and by Johnny Chan, in BJF.

This thread was specifically about building up a bankroll from nothing. Card counting, at least as a staple for working up to other approaches, makes more sense for higher stakes as the absolute gain from lower variance advantage play diminishes with bankroll growth. I was making the point that card counting is a bad choice for lowly-bankrolled players. This is nothing to do with Doug Grant nonsense about card counting not working and stuff like that.

But, while we are on the subject, if what 98% says is true about MIT (I take no interest in popular culture and have not read the book), then the returns sound pathetic, I'm surprised.

> If only they had known all of the above,
> think of how well they might have done! :-)

> Don

[Don Schlesinger]

"I do not know how much the author himself will earn, but I would say he stands a chance of passing the $10million mark depending on how the movie deal gets made."

The author MAY get a dollar or two per book sale. Let me know when the sales hit 10 million! :-)

As for the movie, you have to understand that there is little chance that the movie will ever be made. Picking up the rights to a script is done 1,000 times a day.

Don

[bond trader]

> The author MAY get a dollar or two per book
> sale. Let me know when the sales hit 10
> million! :-)

Come on, Don, we all know you made $10 mil from BJA1 alone! :-D

BT

[Pro Player]

The average MIT team player made 25,000 per year.
Sure, it's part time, and sure many were students, but as 98% said ... peanuts.

And as for the ace tracking and such, they obviously didn't do it it right if they didn't make much. Those who did it right during that time made a killing.

That being said, I wouldn't be overly surprised if someone made more from the book than from the casnos. But then again, I won't be buyng the book.

[sean]

1. Too small a bankroll.
2. Lower bets when on a losing streak.
3. Can't deal with swings.
4. Can't stay away from alcohol.
5. Can't keep their eyes off of gorgeous girls.
6. Have poor personalities and can't blend in/chat it up with pit personel so as to not be barred.
7. Get bored and overbet their bankroll.

It took me about a week to learn to count and about 2 years to make it profitable. Learning to befriend the pit crew, to pretend to drink while not doing so, bringing a girl with you when playing, increasing your bankroll, etc will take a while to learn. Additionally there are good situations and bad ones. A good situation is to play next to someone betting far more than you. No pit boss wants to create a scene with a high roller right there. Additionally, it is much easier to vary bets on a busy night than an early morning. As you play you'll learn all the things that counting does not teach you.

So in total, I would say 50% of counters just can't count. 45% have problems with the above reasons and 5% or so do very well.

Good luck.

Sean

[Mr. Lucky]

You keep your day job and keep expenses to a minimum by playing casinos close to home. You're not a threat when playing very low stakes, so it's easy to put a lot of hours in. You use no cover, and you comp hustle big time.

I played several-hundred hours in my first six months. I built a $200 (no lie) bankroll to $6,000 in this time frame due mainly to comp hustling and luck, but also counting. In my first full year, I kept my day job and still managed to play 1,000 hours for the year. It was totally exhausting, but it was worth it. In that time span, I built my little $6K bankroll to $85K by the end of the year. Granted, I was really lucky - close to +2SD, but it can be done. It takes, time, discipline, and a lot of determination.

Another way is the team concept. Risky. It's hard to find a good team if you're new and unknown.

[98%]

> But, while we are on the subject, if what
> 98% says is true about MIT (I take no
> interest in popular culture and have not
> read the book), then the returns sound
> pathetic, I'm surprised.

The information I posted is from an interview with Johnny C. in 'Blackjack Forum.' I don't think that qualifies as popular culture, given the specialized nature and small readership of that magazine. Of course, there is no way to know if the numbers are true or not. You really can't trust anything a blackjack player says or puts in writing when it comes to things like that.