Talk:Card counting

message: Does anyone else notice the first paragraph of the "Design and selection of systems" section is a copy of a previous paragraph. Is this a copy paste mistake? I think that the second occurrence should be removed entirely. SentientSystem (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Repititon

message: I came here to find out about the aspects of card couunting seen as cheating by the casinos and what countermeasures are being taken... Right now it's just a description of the technique itself. --Lenton 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well go ahead and do it then. -- Chuq 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Welcome. The countermeasures used are a subset of the same used in B&M casinos -- continuous or frequent shuffling. As an aside, the iPhone app does not count correctly.Objective3000 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Countermeasures

message: In the history section, there's a lengthy paragraph regarding the MIT Blackjack Team. Does anyone agree that this information would be better placed in that article? Rray 03:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would be good to take it all and put it there, and just leave a see also to that article. 2005 03:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MIT Blackjack Team

message: Is this clause missing jacks queens and kings?
:the cards number 2 through 6 are counted as +1 and all tens and aces are counted as -1. 
-if not, why are only tens and aces counted as high? 213.219.161.27 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacks, queens, and kings are considered 10's, since that's the point value for the face cards.  Rray 01:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi Lo Count?

message: I've edited and cleaned up quite a bit of the article, and added footnotes where appropriate, but the following sections of the article still need to proofread and rewritten:
Expected profit from card counting 
Countermeasures against blackjack card-counters 
Detecting card counters 
History of blackjack card counting 
Future appropriate articles might include individual articles about different card counting systems. If we decide to move forward with such a thing, it would be good to create a sub-category of the blackjack category for card counting systems. Rray 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is giving a full description of a card counting system relavant to an encyclopedia?--155.144.251.120 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant to people looking for information on the subject, yes. It's certainly a notable gambling activity. In an encyclopedia that includes such far out subjects as the seven different forms of Light saber content, it's hard to say that something like card counting isn't relevant. Rray 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have subject-matter relevant expertise. Is your list of tasks still current? I rewrote and extended Detecting. Having skimmed the other three sections I don't see anything too terribly objectionable. It's all pretty straightforward and supportable other than that the "History of" part looks to be full of arcane trivia, possibly rewritten from a web source. (For instance, the aside mentioning that four people who wrote in 1957 are known among card-counters as "the four horsemen" - I'm a card counter pretty well-versed in the relevant literature and I'd never heard of these bozos. Why mention the nickname without some context to explain why anyone should care?) Okay, so I  should take a scalpel or a meat cleaver to "History Of", but other than that: do you just want more footnotes and crosslinks everywhere, or are there specific assertions you find dubious? Blogjack 09:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think removing some of the "History of" section will make the article better, then by all means, cut away. The important thing is that the article be accurate, useful, and well-written. More footnotes would be appropriate in the lower part of the article; I think most of the top half of the article, or maybe even the top 2/3, is pretty well referenced. Rray 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Is giving a full description of a card counting system relavant to an encyclopedia?", Is giving a full description of the mating rituals of a spotted yellow frog relevant* to an encyclopedia?   of course.... that's what encyclopedias are used for, vast amounts of factual information. Just because the systems involved have not been written about fully in many areas, does not mean it should be overlooked. ~~Garratt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.214.178 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining tasks

message: The article currently reads as follows:
"Another interesting aspect of the probability of card counting is the fact that, at higher counts, the player's probability of winning a hand is actually lower than at lower counts - so that, with an optimal strategy, the player places his highest bets on hands whose probability of losing is actually the highest."
This is not true. See for example the website http://www.bjstats.com/bjsc.asp and select the "Win, Loss & Tied Percentages by True Count" table for this case: Decks: 6 Decks, 83% penetration; Betting: no cover; Rules: S17, DAS; Strategy: High-Low. Look at the column labeled "Including Ties, Wins" and notice that for true counts in the range of -12 to +12 (which encompasses over 99.9% of the hands in the simulation), the Win% increases monotonically with increasing TC.
140.158.46.101 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Statement: probability of winning is lower at higher counts 

message: Does this make sense as an external link? http://www.qfit.com/privacy1.htm. It covers card-counter identification, facial recognition, surveillance and other issues related to card counting in casinos.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems it would fail point 14 of WP:EL: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.  If the information were organized onto a "identification of card counters", then it seems that would be a fine link.  As it is though, it seems like a better link for advantage gambling, but even then it is still "indirectly related" more than directly. 2005 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the point and some of the text certainly could apply to general areas of privacy. But the document was written by a card counting team manager specifically to help team members avoid detection in casinos. Objective3000 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: "Automated card-reading technology has known abuse potential in that it can be used to simplify the practice of preferential shuffling—having the dealer reshuffle the cards whenever the odds favor the players."
Anyone have any information on the legality of this? Seems to take 'house always wins' to extremes, but I don't know anything about gambling, so not sure to what extent the casinos are allowed to weight their games. Cheers.
(86.152.217.26 (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.blackjack-scams.com/html/mindplay.html Objective3000 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferential Shuffling 

message: The ace sequencing info in the current entry is unsourced and also wrong factually. (The entry conflates the cuts game with the sequencing game.) This is fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleoriffic (talk • contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it's wrong. And it's also wrong on the Shuffle Tracking page. Been meaning to rewrite it; but been too lazy. Objective3000 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Blackjack Card Counting 

message: Let us assume that Basic Strategy(i) is the best course of action that a player can take, given that he is playing against an infinite deck, and knowing only his own total and the dealer's upcard. In this case, counting cards will do no good, as the probabilities remain static, given the infinite deck. However, real blackjack is not played with an infinite deck. Every time that a card is dealt and seen, it changes Basic Strategy(i) ever so slightly. At some point these changes add up, to where some of the Hits become Stands, some of the Stands become Hits, some of the Hits become Doubles, etc. My question is, has anyone ever done a computer program that calculates the changes in Basic Strategy that occur after each and every single card is dealt (and thus known) based on the percentage of remaining cards of each of the ten different card values counted separately, and for number of decks from one to (say) ten? (I will assume that playing with more decks would render Basic Strategy to be close to that of an infinite deck.) I assume that this would be the absolute best playing strategy. Given that this is so, has anyone ever done a computer program that calculates how much the player should bet at any point along this running calculation of changes to Basic Strategy changes? Of course, my whole point is theoretical, as no computers are allowed in casinos, and no human (?) could possibly do this in his head while playing a real game. Mamarazzi (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are asking if tables can be built in advance, the tables would be near infinite. If you are asking if a program can be built to determine exact plays depending on a specific set of spent cards, yes combinatorial analysis can easily and quickly do this and several people have developed such programs. But, the gains over traditional counting are not major. Maybe at single-deck with significant penetration. Questions like this are better answered on a BJ forum.Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Best theoretical card-counting method

message: There's no discussion, apparently, about the jargon template. I'm no expert in the matter at hand and my mother tongue isn't English. Still, I read the article without difficulty. It's time to remove the template. 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no disagreement, I agree. JimScott (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon 

message: The following material is not suitable for a bio, but may be useful in the accompanying article if not already covered:
: The technique eliminated the advantage of the house, which had an estimated maximum of approximately 5% (when following strategies with the smallest possibility of winning, either mimicking the dealer or never busting), and instead gave the player an advantage of approximately 1%.The Mathematics of Gambling by Edward O. Thorp (Online Book)
--Jerzy•t 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material from Thorp bio 

message: The article now has a "Group counting" section and a "teams" section, which appear to be about the same concept.  I think they should be merged.  Thundermaker (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group counting vs. teams 

message: This article is currently poorly sourced.  I tried to fix some of this problem but my effort was quickly  reverted.  If anyone has a problem with using Axelrad's book as a source, please explain why here. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained this on my talk page. The refs you added already had better refs. You don't need a ref in every single paragraph if the facts are already reffed. For example, you added a ref for Wonging. But, the previous paragraph already had a ref for Wonging. You added a ref for HiLo. But, a ref already exists for numerous counting systems, including HiLo. I am assuming good faith. But, it also looks odd when four refs to a brand new book are added in one shot on subjects that are discussed in dozens of earlier, respected books. I really don't think the article, in general, is "poorly sourced." The Detection section could use some refs, as flagged. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every paragraph needs a source, even if it's a duplicate of the source used in the preceeding paragraph.  Do you have an objection to Axelrad being used as a source?  If not, then why would you need to make an effort to "assume good faith" when someone uses the book as a source to cite several unsourced paragraphs? Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see that "every paragraph" needs a source? WP:V states "in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Further, I see nothing about every paragraph requiring a physical cite. One cite can cover more than one paragraph or a section. Otherwise, you would end up with massive duplicate refs. On the particular book, Axelrod's book is a personal memoir, not one of the numerous Blackjack math texts. IMHO there are more established sources that better match the needs of an encyclopedia. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More sourcing

message: How can we say "As of January 2012, there are no federal, state or local laws which prohibit card counting in the United States" and then cite a 1999 book as the reference? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Law 

message: I would like the comments of other editors on the following issue.  On August 9, 2012, I deleted a reference in the Card_counting article to a WP editor's self-published commercial website that was in fact placed by the editor.  I commented that the reference was not authoritative and therefore did not serve to improve the article.  I quoted words from that self-published website reference, "Ease of use . . . is based strictly on my own opinions (sic) and a few phone calls"  and I editorialized that such "does not establish authority for inclusion [as a reference] in an encyclopedia."  
The owner of the self-published website then reversed my deletion without rationale but with an ad hominem attack on me, in violation of WP:Civil (one of the 5 pillars of WP!) and WP:PA.  
The sole issue here is whether or not the reference, which indeed calls itself into question as authoritative, does in fact improve the article Card_counting.   (This editor has systematically placed references to his various self-published commercial websites in other gambling-related articles that he has edited, in some cases deleting references to highly respected authorities.)  
I welcome the feelings of other editors on the issue of a WP editor using WP articles to place references to his self-published commercial websites in all cases, and particularly when the reference does not serve to improve the article.
Drlesmgolden (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits on WP have all been for your own self-promotion including pages that you have created and have been removed. You have been attacking me and removing my edits for years, often using sock puppets, in violation of WP policies because I was one of several editors that !voted against you in an RfC resulting in the removal of an article about you created by you using socks. You also made a very disturbing phone call to me during which you made several claims about a person that you invented. You have been barred and have had at least ten sock-accounts removed from WP. As to the edit in question, the page used as a ref has been used as a ref hundreds of times on numerous Blackjack sites by numerous people. In fact, I've issued several DMCAs as it has been copied so many times. ONE field is based upon opinion, and that field is not the purpose of its use as a ref. Your comment that I have deleted refs from highly respected authorities and replaced them with mine is a flat-out lie. The claim that I have several self-published “commercial” websites is a flat-out lie. In fact, unlike many other refs that are littered with online casino ads, my sites have zero such ads. My Blackjack forum, which is listed number one or two in Google (one at the moment) has zero ads of any kind. Objective3000 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing of Commercial Self-Published Websites as References 

message: The edit by Drlesmgolden contains a very large number of refs. I'll be as nice as I can. They appear to be a collection of random Google hits, including small forum posts. Most of the sites I have never seen and they were clearly written by people with little understanding of card counting. Statements like true count is calculated by the total number of decks in a game, or Revere count is used for long sessions, or an unbalanced strategy is best for single-deck are simply nonsense. One claims Hi-Opt I is called Einstein because it is so complex. In fact, it's simple and called that because it was developed by Charles Einstein. What's really humorous, is that of all the strategies that exist (there are many more than in this table), he has taken the exact list from the table on www.qfit.com/card-counting.htm (removing REKO, which I developed), and then removed the ref to the table from which he obviously took the list. Objective3000 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I've received an email today from no one I recognized (at time, now on this page I see the sender's name) about Objective3000 post above. No idea why me, but since asked I will put my 5 cents. I think I have to side with Objective3000 on this. Those are some dodgy references. One or two references look good to me, but majority of them come from pages full of affiliate links - and in between the banners and sign up links is a bit of content sprinkled in, and on some of the references, even written anonymously. Mr. Anonymous wrote something at some unknown date .... why should that something be taken seriously as a source? If your goal is to add information, I am sure it is available elsewhere and was not discovered by Mr. Anonymous, and if it was, then back it up with some real sources.  If your sources were solid, you wouldn't be having this discussion now. :Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you received an e-mail about me, that might suggest that Drlesmgolden is yet again canvassing using yet another sock. He used about a dozen socks in an attempt to add pages about himself to WP and has used socks to canvass in his support before. He was barred for socks and his pages removed. In the last year, all of his posts have been about me. Seemingly in retribution for my small part in the WP group decisions to remove his pages. Perhaps it wasn't a sock. But I, frankly, do not understand the purpose of sending e-mails about editors to other editors not known to them. And, I remain unnerved by the strange phone call I received from Drlesmgolden. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit on card counting strategies 

message: This page talks about the iPhone app as one of the devices that people can use, and then claims that they are not as accurate as doing it in your head. It then gives a cites an article that doesn't say anything about the iPhone app. IT is talking about the 40+ year old primitive computers like you see in the movie Casino where you have some mechanical counter strapped to your thigh that you can input values with your finger in your pocket and gives you a shock or something in your shoe. Obviously modern counters..even smartphone apps are going to be more accurate than using your head.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D500:3D00:D07D:6E77:C66D:76A3 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be assuming that all modern software is well written.:) The app that was discussed did not count neutral cards and miscalculated TC. Objective3000 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy of devices section is wrong 

message: I came to this page specifically to find out why card counting is considered cheating, but no where in the article is it explained. If anyone could add a section to explain why it is cheating, I think it would edify the article more. I know card counting is widely considered to be cheating, but it is not intuitive why it should be and there seems to be no explanation. Card counting is the logical way to play this game--why would anyone NOT card count? Adding this information to the article would be helpful IMO. I'm off to find the answer elsewhere on the internet, thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.39.231.186 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Card counting is not cheating. I explain this here: Is card counting illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is card counting considered cheating? 

message: There’s been some back and forth delete-restore of this section as it’s unsourced. The section certainly needs work as well as sourcing. For that matter, other sections are also largely unsourced. I’d like to try to save the section. Unfortunately, even though there exists substantial sourcing for this info, few sources would pass WP:IRS muster. Suggestions are welcome. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BURDEN makes clear that unsourced information which has been removed "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". I'm not clear why you've decided yourself to be above that policy but you're wrong and should self-revert before someone else does.Amisom (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored and tagged it with the hope of salvaging it. This isn’t a WP:BLP requiring immediate deletion. You are welcome to help improvement of this section and other poorly sourced sections in the article instead of making wholesale deletions, as I believe is the spirit of BURDEN. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BURDEN says that unsourced information which has been removed "should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Those are its actual words. How can the spirit of BURDEN possibly include you doing the exact opposite of what it says?Amisom (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to fix this and you are taking up my time WP:WIKILAWYERING instead of helping. If you have a problem with what I'm doing, take it to one of the drama boards. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WIKILAWYERING is an essay (that anyway doesn't apply in this case). WP:BURDEN is a policy that you have deliberately breached because you, apparently, think you know better. Yes, I will have to take this further.Amisom (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am busily adding refs to this article, as you know from discussion on my Talk and my edit comments, and you are interfering with my work. This is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn’t, because your ‘work’ is not more important than oir core content policies. You can look for sources just as well whether or not that list is in the current version of the article- just look in the page history if you want to see it. Amisom (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving text between sections. Not possible when you delete a section WP:DE. As you've stopped my work, I've added to the current discussion about you on AN/I. O3000 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Exciting times Amisom (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countermeasures section 

message: Was it right that unsourced content was restored, still unsourced given WP:BURDEN's statement: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"? And if not, should that unsourced content be re-deleted until sources can be found? Amisom (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: One can not "defame" an industry. SPECIFICO talk  12:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  perhaps I was talking in the everyday sense rather than the legal sense. In any event, we seek accuracy, so what’s the difference. Amisom (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Two roads diverged in a yellow wood. Whether to delete or salvage. I took the salvage road. (With apologies to Robert Frost.) O3000 (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You  could salvage without restoring the material – especially since restoring the material was in DIRECT violation of a clear policy. I know you don’t consider yourself bound by policy, but you’re wrong. Amisom (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No policy violation. Not controversial content. BTW "defamation" would violate BLP but this does not apply to a description of industry practice wherein no individual is cited as having done this or that.  SPECIFICO talk  13:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (A) WP:BURDEN says that unsourced material, once deleted, shouldn’t be restored. It was. That’s a policy violation. Really simple. (B) Once again, I suggest you look ‘defamatory’ up in a (non-legal) dictionary. It’s an ordinary English word and is quite appropriate here. Amisom (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (C) nope.  SPECIFICO talk  14:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don’t have anything useful to say maybe its time for you to back away before something goes wrong. Amisom (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what?47.137.183.192 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on unsourced material 

message: I think I agree with your addition of the gambling template today. But, I wonder about your opinion of the relevance to so many other articles related to sundry financial markets. Actually, many counters are also involved with financial trading. And, no wonder, as they share so many traits. I have difficulty understanding how the template is more relevant on this article than articles on so many financial instruments, the use of which have caused massive losses as well as bankruptcies and recessions. This is not a criticism. I don't know the answer. O3000 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Casino gambling might be a better name for the template, but we would need an article on casino gambling vs other forms of gambling. Valoem talk contrib 01:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambling template 

message: This discussion is taking place at Blackjack.Aabcxyz (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Motion to Remove All References Placed by Objective3000 in Blackjack, Card counting, and Shuffle track and Wherever They May Also Appear in Wikipedia Articles to His Self-published Commercial Websites qfit and blackjackincolor