Posted on December 26, 2000; later updates.
In Reply to: Blackjack Card-Counting Never Dies - posted by Ion Parpaluck Saliu on December 26, 2000.
I posted this message on the rec.gambling.blackjack forum:
• Most of the posters to the original thread are also visitors to my website. I remember even kicking the rear end of one of them (Norman Wattenberger). I know also most of you hate mathematics, for various reasons (Norman Wattenberger, Arnold Snyder, Stanford Wong, Ken Smith, Rusty Martin, etc.). I do not know any of you. I offer at my site what I consider to be the Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG). It is undeniable mathematics.
I wrote previously a popular article on the math of blackjack subject. Some of you still hate me for that (notably, of course, the card-counting system developers and vendors!) I offer also special probability software applicable to gambling mathematics: SuperFormula. Among other features, the program calculates the binomial distribution formula (BDF). The formula also calculates the permutations of N (N!). Let's say, there is a blackjack game with 100% penetration (all cards are dealt), and just one Player versus Dealer. There are 13 cards left in the deck. How many ways can 13 cards be arranged in that gigantically-optimistic blackjack situation? 13! = 6,227,020,800; i.e. 6 billion, 227 million, 20 thousand, 800 hundred. Huge number, isn't it? How can one count (pun intended) on an advantage, when there are so many possibilities? Read one of my articles on the topic, plus get combinatorial software to generate sequences (sets) of numbers:
I am available for the casino gambling challenge issued by the "Doug Grant". Nobody knows for sure who Doug Grant is. He claims his name is a trademark! Atlantic City would be the best place, since the casinos may not bar the blackjack card counters. It's the law of the state of New Jersey. Every participant would play his/her best gambling method, without restrictions. One week should be a sufficient period of time to prove a point.
Now, the suckers will surface. Some would claim that methods such as card counting would validate only in one million blackjack hands... some even argue for billions of events! I would tell them: “That's not mathematics, that's cowardice”. There are two methods in mathematics and logic: the complete induction and the incomplete deduction. Based on the latter, if a relation proves to be true for 1 case, for 2 cases, . . ., for N cases, then it must be true for N+1 cases as well. You don't need to play 1,000,000 blackjack hands. The hands played in one week will suffice. Agree?
I am ready for the gambling challenge posted there. The casino challenge issued by Doug Grant TM (!) goes like this:
Moreover, I should say that I have nothing to sell, nor am I employed by any casino, agent, or publisher. Nor do I have any financial connection with any casino enterprise, system huckster, nor are any of my copyrighted methods available for sale. I have devised a system for trading financial futures, and frankly, I make more money in one month now than I did in one year of playing professional Blackjack. (Yes, eventually I intend to sell my futures trading system once I decide to register as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA)). Yet it will be sold exclusively to industrial clients with a 90 day free trial.) I should also mention that I have been offered a book deal once my litigation is finished with the casinos. No doubt some of my aforementioned methods of play will be revealed in my forthcoming book. So I do not have any ulterior motive to state the simple truth in respect to the fact that blackjack card counting systems have been irrefutably proved a loser against real world casino conditions.
If you feel otherwise, then as I stated above, you first need to state your background in respect to in-casino real world card counting for money, and your verifiable general background. Not to mention name a casino that you believe will lose to any card counting system you care to publish here.
Moreover, if you would like to demonstrate to me or one of my associates how ANY card counter can play with a long-term advantage undetected, I certainly would love to hear your proposition.
Depending upon the [blackjack] game and the rules and the system, it would not take very long for any card counter to play the amount of rounds necessary to prove card counting would win or lose against real world casino conditions. Moreover, if as you claim a card counter can still win, then he would be making big money all that time. So what's the bitch again Ed? Not enough time to make big money? You are starting to sound more and more like Stanford Wong... that is his typical whine whenever anyone asks him why he is not out there making big money with all those "winning" systems he sells.
So what excuse are you going to use now Ed? Card counting systems have been proved a miserable failure against real world casino conditions. I have offered you and any other the opportunity to prove me wrong in real world casino, or by using good BJ simulator software that will include ALL of the tactics the casinos use on a regular basis against suspect blackjack card counters. Real world casino or simulator, both reveal the truth that card counting systems can no longer win.
Doug Grant (TM) firstname.lastname@example.org"
I, Ion Saliu, hereby posted my real name, email, and credentials. I am waiting for potential challenge-takers to do the same. How about you, Doug Grant (you trademarked your name... or you lie like an old dog)? Hey, you ready to prove your casino gambling system? You must have a really good blackjack gambling system. Otherwise, it would be impossible to fool 60,000 people and still be free, even alive... In truth… the 60000 past students figure is a big lie!
Gambling is all about streaks — the foundation of gambling mathematics, blackjack included. Software name: Streaks. It is a component of the best collection of mathematical, probability, statistical software known as Scientia. You might also want to take a closer look at the entire collection of blackjack software I've written.
An Editor's Note 2014
I can STILL see that BJ gamblers believe Doug Grant is... Ion Saliu!!! A few curious emails and forum posts (2014) made me wonder! Again, this “equation” is formulated only because both entities (I am a person, while D.G. has ; or Inc. next to his name!) expose blackjack card counting as the biggest gambling deception, equal only to roulette computers.
The curious fact is that Doug Grant was a card-counter, plus vendor of and instructor in card counting gambling systems for blackjack! He, like the guys he was at war against, is a voodoobuck. The voodoobucks (some say voodoobugs) belong to a kinduv secret Order of the Voodoobuck. The gambling cult is mostly comprised of addicts in blackjack card-counting and wheel-clocking-with-roulette-computers.
I tried card counting for less than a year. I knew mathematics (combinatorics) was against card-counting — but I tried it as any researcher should. Obviously, I never sold blackjack card-counting systems. I devised one that also counts 7, 8, 9 that should be a whole lot more effective than any other counting system out there. Still, my “blackjack card-counting system” does NOT show any mathematical advantage compared to simply playing basic strategy. Not to mention the difficulty of keeping three counts accurately! Much ado about nothing, axiomatic one!
This Doug Grant ( or Inc.) debacle is as old as 1995. It was before I had Internet or online access (I first subscribed to the Internet in 1997). I did more research and I found out why this reaction against Doug Grant; and why this false belief that Ion Saliu is Doug Grant — and vice versa. I just discovered the FAQ of rec.gambing.blackjack (12/25/1995):
Card-counting at blackjack represented a tremendous attraction for many gamblers. Tremendous attraction translates financially to many gamblers hitting the casinos driven by the “irrational exuberance” of getting rich. Blackjack is a beatable game! Never mind that even the “bishops” of card-counting proclaimed only 1% – 2% players advantage! That's WAY too little to beat the binomial standard deviation! In other words, there is absolutely no difference in winning or losing at blackjack between card counting and random play.
There is a big financial difference, however. Blackjack card-counting considers ALL positive counts as winning situations automatically. The player must automatically increase the bet — and that action fails more often than not. There is no secret that the card counters lose more money in shorter periods of time than basic strategy blackjack players.
Blackjack players are the FAVORITES of the casinos. Blackjack players invest serious money in gambling systems like card-counting. If the players spend so much money on the counting systems, they will be always willing to spend even more playing blackjack! In fact, the casinos themselves spend big money to lure blackjack card-counters in! To make it even more “realistic”, the casinos frighten the counters that they can be tortured to lose the last of their penny! That blackjack movie titled 21 is irrefutable proof. "Hey, if them casinos go to that extent, there must be something real about card counting at blackjack — it must be a winning system!"
But it is bad news for the casinos IF even card-counting authors and vendors (such as Doug Grant) expose the invalidity of the systems as a whole! The aforementioned FAQ is undoubtedly written by casino consultants (the “casino moles” as I have always called them all).
Matter of fact, the rec.gambling.blackjack newsgroup must have been established by the casinos. The guys write like lawyers! You can also see mentions of noted blackjack card-counting authors such as Stanford Wong and Arnold Snyder (Stanford Wong is a pseudonym) and other voodoobucks. The two “blackjack authors” testified in favor of the casinos in the Campione card-counting court case! The two STILL sell card counting systems and instruction materials for serious money...
There was a Campione legal case where the courts ruled decidedly in favor of the blackjack player (Anthony John Campione). Doug Grant was a witness for the plaintiff, Campione. Stanford Wong and Arnold Snyder were witnesses for casinos. I have no doubt in my mind why Doug Grant ( or Inc.) and his clique sued the casinos in Atlantic City. He wanted the same reward as Campione — 2 million dollars in damages! However, Doug Grant's lawsuit was on shaky grounds legally; e.g. he/they claimed that it was illegal for the casinos to change the rules of blackjack or use the preferential shuffle. The casinos have the right to establish or change the rules of their games as they find fit. But they must do it before a game starts; that is, the house must make the rules easily visible to the players and make no changes during the game.
Doug Grant also seems Janus to me (the double-faced mythological figure). He strongly dismisses card counting as a winning gambling method. Meanwhile, he touts that his counting system is a winner! It must be something else that he has. Incidentally, he claims he discovered his own “gambling formula” — but nobody has ever seen it... not even Doogie Grant himself...
By contrast, my legal complaint against the Atlantic City casinos would have had solid grounds. It was NOT for the reason of card counting. They didn't let me play because I was writing in a paper notebook the results of my play (win, loss, amount of bet). Numerous players write down in casinos every day, as we speak (especially roulette numbers). Why do the casinos ban me? Writing down on paper helps with tax records (at that time, I had the intention of becoming a professional gambler).
Blackjack: Software, Content, Resources, Systems, Basic Strategy, Card Counting
See a comprehensive directory of the pages and materials on the subject of blackjack, baccarat, software, systems, and basic strategy.