Talk:MIT Blackjack Team

Overall edge
The article claims that "the card counting techniques used by the MIT team can give players an overall edge of up to about 2%, some of the MIT team's methods have been established as gaining players an overall edge of up to about 4%." It seems to me that this needs a citation. I've been searching google but have found no reports of how much the MIT team improved their black jack odds. Theinsomniac4life 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't belive there is any refernce on-line. Check out the book "Bringing Down the House : The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas for Millions" by Ben Mezrich -- Jason Palpatine 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)


 * Thanks for the reply, Jason. I'm still becoming familiar with Wikipedia and wanted advice on editing this article. Should that line be removed since it lacks a proper reference? I'm not going to take the time to read the book simply to edit this article. It was academic curiosity that made me wonder how great of an edge the team had attained. Of course this is an extremely difficult question to assess, and guesswork estimates of 2-4% seem utterly meaningless to me. My question then, stated more directly, is should this line and similar statements of fact remain in wikipedia articles without proper referencing? Theinsomniac4life


 * Regarding just the meaning of an overall edge estimate: If your overall edge is 2% that means each time you bet $100, you expect in the long run to win $2 from that bet. In actuality you will usually either push, lose $100, or gain $100 (or a related value - some multiple of $100 in the case of doubling down, splitting hands, or dealing with a blackjack)...but averaged over many hands in many situations over time you expect to win about $2. This can be turned into an hourly earnings rate if you know how fast the player is playing, like so: With a 2% edge and an average bet of $100 if the player can manage ~100 hands an hour the player will earn ~$200/hour.
 * The actual edge is usually calculated based on computer simulations - one has the computer play out millions of hands given certain game conditions and sees what earnings rate results. The teams worked out precise edge estimates for a wide variety of scenarios. That said, the need for waffling with that "up to" comes from the fact that game conditions and strategies were constantly changing. There wasn't just one play strategy or one set of casino conditions; there were many. I read the quoted text as saying the techniques *usually* have an edge between 0 and 2% but *sometimes* have an edge as high as 4%. --Blogjack (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The higher-return "methods" being referred to presumably include shuffle-tracking, hole-card play, and exploiting dealer errors. Tricks one couldn't use all the time, depending on unusual conditions or special expertise. Blogjack (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like pure fiction.
I don't get it. The casinos are known to be run by the mafia. Most likely they just kill troublesome people and have their bodies sleep with the fishes or pour them in concrete and there will be zero witnesses (law of omerta), so the crime never gets solved. How come the MIT team survived so long instead of being invited to their own funerals by the Godfather? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You've been watching too many movies. Yes, casinos have been run by criminals in the past - back when they were *funded* by criminals - but today's casinos tend to be publically owned and regulated corporations. Players occasionally have gotten beaten up by overzealous security personnel, but the casinos make too much money for it to be worth the lawsuit risk of that being the general policy. Hurting or killing your customers when they win is bad for business. If some customers are especially good at winning, it's just as easy to modify the rules of the game to reduce their edge. Or keep shuffling until they go away. --Blogjack (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Roles section is lifted directly from a Wired article, Hacking Las Vegas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.123.17.83 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch, I have deleted this section as a copyright violation. A "Roles" section could be usefully re-created, so long as it does not violate Wikipedia copyright policies. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-contradictory header.
> MIT Blackjack Team is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. <

Is that theoretically possible? I mean can gambling or anything related to it be "useful"? If I understand correctly, gambling is a sub-zero sum game for the whole society, that is benefits from individual win are always less than the harm done to public good. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are talking about an externality that they probably don't care about. A useful gambling resource would simply have to be one that gamblers find useful.  Casino gambling is negative-sum for the entire gambling population, but not necessarily to the individual gambler.  Just because the house always wins, that doesn't mean that individual gamblers can't come out ahead.  And so a resource that helps gamblers (think) they are doing better, then it is useful.67.167.33.52 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether gambling is beneficial for society is a matter of opinion, although even if it wasn't it is orthogonal to the question of whether WikiProject Gambling is a useful resource. AndyBloch 10:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I teach graduate and undergraduate statistics courses and regularly refer to the MIT blackjack team and to movies such as 21 to: (1) illustrate applications of probability theory, (2) discuss when it is appropriate/inappropriate to rely on Expected Value calcuations, (3) to add some levity to a topic many students find terrifying.Froid 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Horribly unreferenced
The entire article reads to me like original research. Where is all this information from? I'm tempted to delete most sections, as none of them are referenced. ~MDD4696 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The information is coming from the people who ran the MIT Blackjack Team, and personal recollections of those who played on it. -- JP Massar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massar (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is what is meant by original research. Personal recollections should not be added, only material cited from third party sources.  That may seem dumb, but that is the process here. 2005 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"took liberties with the truth"
It attacks an author's credibility. Do not add this back in. If you believe he took liberties with the truth, you need to cite another source saying that it is the case, and state that it is the opinion of that source. Otherwise, you just libeled someone. GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's laughable. Mezrich would be the first to admit it wasn't meant to be a documentary. Characters are composites. And the movie isn't close. There was no professor running the teams. No one was beat up. It's fiction. Everyone on the teams has talked about the inaccuracies. Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right about the movie. We need a source for the books, though. We're calling an author's integrity into question, and we shouldn't do that lightly, for obvious legal reasons. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright page of the book says "The names of many of the characters and locations of the book have been changed, as have certain physical characteristics and other descriptive details. Some of the events are characters are also composites of several individual events or persons. http://www.amazon.com/21-Bringing-Tie-Students-Millions/dp/1416564195/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256659793&sr=1-1#reader_0743225708  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreiss17 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-promotion
The additions from mitted do not belong in a dictionary. No one has heard of CEJBlackjack and who won a party game is unencylopedic.Objective3000 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to win.
When Foxwoods opened I wrote a C program to determine the odds for different strategies of play. I started by copying the dealers strategy and winning about 45% of the time. As my strategy improved I got better but all I was able to do is to approach 50%. That is I could win 48% of the time. This improved to 49% of the time then 49.9% of the time. Finally if got to 49.99% of the time ( or money). I was able to simulate card counting but it did not seem to help. I would like to know what I missed. Arydberg (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The WIkipedia article on Card Counting is quite good and probably covers whatever you missed. In general, basic strategy makes the game close to even; card counting can add enough of a bonus to make it positive expectation *if* it was a pretty good game to begin with. Card counting involves both play variation and bet variation such that even though you still lose the majority of hands played, you tend to make more money on a few winning hands than you lose on the losing hands per (sufficiently large) sample of play. A simple example of play variation is "hit 16 versus ten when the count is negative, but stand on 16 versus 10 when the count is positive." A too-simple example of bet variation you could simulate is "bet $2 when the count is negative or neutral; bet $500 when the count is high." --Blogjack (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to say what you might be missing without a lot more details about what you are doing. One obvious question, though, it how you are varying your bet. For most rules, perfect playing decisions will not generate an advantage if you don't vary your bet. Also, it is funny that you are quoting the win frequency. The probably of winning a given hand is, I believe, less than 50% but the player wins 3/2 on Blackjack plus puts more money on the table in favorable situations by splitting and doubling down. So, the expected gain can be positive even if your odds of winning a particular hand are less than 50%. However, as noted above, the most important factor generating a player advantage is raising your bet in favorable situations. It is definitely possible to win (confirmed both in computer simulations and real life.

Self-promotion attempts
There have been several reverts of attempts to include a name in this article. Today's included a reference to page vegasnow.webs.com/themitblackjackteam.htm. This is a new site on a free page site that still has the front page template intact ("Title - Add your main content here.") The referernced page appears to have been copied from the MIT site (tech.mit.edu/V122/N50/50bj.50n.html). Only, a sentence was added with the name that this editor has been attempting to add to WP.Objective3000 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Early history
The early history section of this page has always been a bit off, but recent edits by blackjaceace have made things quite a bit worse.

Rather than edit the page now, I'd like to state my "version" of the early history. If there are no objections, I'll update the main page at some point.

I lived on Conner 3 in 79. I was one of the original students who became interested in blackjack in January of 79. As I recall, there were 5 of us: Joe, Steve, Johnathan, and me (Ed) from Conner 3, and JP from Conner 5. There were a number of other students who played with us from time-to-time, but we were the main players.

I have no recollection of a course being taught in Jan of '79. I have asked Joe and Steve (both of whom I still keep in touch with) and they do not recall this course either. We all believe our interest in Blackjack started when Joe showed us a book he had just gotten called Blackjack as Business by Lawrence Revere.

We practiced during IAP and duringFebruary and March in the Conner 3 floor lounge. We then did go to Atlantic City during Spring Break of '79. There was no bankroll, nor did we go there "to win our fortunes" (as earlier versions stated). We were playing at $2 tables! We went there to try out the system. We all (I think) lost money, but it was not a lot...even for students.

In June of '79 we all(?) graduated and went our separate ways. Steve even got married. Joe and I both went to work but we did keep in touch with JP and Johnathan. In January of '80, they (along with others) did run a course in card counting during IAP. Joe and I both returned once or twice to help them with the course. I believe this was the start of the first "real" team. I expect the trip Blackjackace tells about happened in the spring of 80. I was not part of this trip. In the summer of '80 Joe went back to grad school, and I believe lost touch with JP and Johnathan. I saw them once or twice during the next year or so, and even visted them in Atlantic City once or twice. I have not seen either since then.

Anyway...that's the early history as I remember it.

I don't know if JP still reads this....He would be the "offical" word.

If there are no objections, I will update the early history section, to reflect what I remember.

Ed V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edv1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed. I generally agree with your comments but can't be bothered getting involved in editing. I'd also be happy to get back in touch with you, Joe and Steve. You can contact me via MIT alumni site. [my.name@alum.mit.edu]

Jonathan R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreiss17 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

NEEDS COMPLETE REWRITE
this is mostly not true. Dr. Bruce Cottman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.13.58 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would probably be best to just substantially shorten the article. While most of the edits were made in good faith, the vast majority of the article consists of recollections, violating WP:OR. There simply aren't any WP accepted reliable sources for most of the content.Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I edited the "In the media" section and included some internal notes proposing the removal of some content.Froid 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that most any trimming is good as the article is mostly OR and POV.Objective3000 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Burton-Conner
Why the silly edit war over Burton Conner House? The dorm at MIT is called Burton-Conner House. As mentioned above, the students in '79 were in the Conner part, so there's not reason to call the dorm just Burton. I'm hesitant to edit the page myself being someone mentioned in the article, but if I did I would make replace "Burton" or "Burton Connor" with this internal link to Burton-Conner House. --AndyBloch 07:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBloch (talk • contribs)
 * Your recollection isn't a reference. However, the whole article is unrefed -- so I changed it anyhow.:) Thanks, Objective3000 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Casino Response
Can we add "nothing" to the list of casino responses? I've read that, after "Beat the Dealer!" was published, the casinos restricted play quite a bit, but they quickly discovered that it actually worked in their favor. People showed up in droves hoping to break the casino, but quickly discovered that replicating the book's results required 1) perfect card play, and 2) perfect counting/betting play. Even then it's a matter of VERY small margins -- perfect play + perfect counting swings the odds from a couple of points negative (in favor of the casino) to a couple of points positive (in favor of the player), which means the player can often go home a loser, in spite of perfect play. Since the margins are +- a few % at best, few people could meet the requirements, and wound up losing lots of money to the casinos, which wound up raking in lots of cash.

As the image consultants will tell you, any pub is good pub.

There have been some lasting changes, though, but not so much about defeating card counters as encouraging people to move up to the higher-dollar tables, where they'll lose money faster. Many of my local casinos use smaller shoes, allow surrender, have more liberal double-down/split rules, etc. at the high-dollar tables, hoping to entice those of us who count cards and who understand what those advantages mean. In other words, if you think you have what it takes to really beat the dealer, you have to step up your game and risk losing faster. It seems like a fair compromise to me. Middlenamefrank (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * True. But, what are you suggesting? Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There's so much misinformation in the Casino Response section (even more than the rest of the article) that it should probably be removed completely. Also, as this is an article about the MIT team, and not blackjack in general, it should focus on the responses to the MIT team in particular. Plus, there are no references. Here's one reference: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1458113.html (Chen was playing with the Amphibians when this happened.) AndyBloch (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy. I've removed the section. As you indicate, the entire article is flawed. Objective3000 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MIT Blackjack Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506144335/http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/homepage/x1012437033 to http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/homepage/x1012437033

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline of events seems to be muddled. The article says: "In 1980, six MIT students [...] taught themselves card-counting. [...] The group went their separate ways when most of them graduated in May of that year [...] but some of them [...] offered a course on blackjack for MIT's January, 1980." The next section compounds the confusion: "In late November 1979, a professional blackjack player contacted one of the card-counting students". I would guess that the first 1980 should be either 1979 or perhaps even earlier, but I don't know the history. Is anyone in the know able to correct the article? --193.128.33.248 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the least of the problems in this article. I know a bunch of these guys. But. I can't use what they tell me as that would be WP:OR. Much of what has been published is incorrect. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MIT Blackjack Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511222958/http://www.necn.com/Boston/Arts-Entertainment/Bringing-Down-the-House-with-Bill-Kaplan/1207956706.html to http://www.necn.com/Boston/Arts-Entertainment/Bringing-Down-the-House-with-Bill-Kaplan/1207956706.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MIT Blackjack Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509162843/http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/store/JanuaryMIT.pdf to http://www.blackjackinstitute.com/store/JanuaryMIT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic City ruling
I altered the part about Atlantic city casinos having to ban players individually as it seemed to suggest that they could ban counters one at a time. They absolutely can not ban players just for being counters, but must have some other pretext. Further, they are far more likely to use other countermeasures to deal with counters. I have listed some of those and put "The Theory of Blackjack" as a citation. If anyone wishes to improve upon said citation or list further, please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C9:C180:FC0:A8D2:9491:829A:4A4B (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)