Card Counting in Australia

Introduction | Brief Overview | Card Counting Legalities (Precedents) | Counter Measures | Profit Analysis | Sensitivity Analysis (%profit) | Conclusion |Bibliography | Blackjack Simulation- Experiment- December 1990 | Experiment Conclusion |

Now to put the system to use, as each card is withdrawn from the shoe a running count is maintained by the player of the high cards to low cards. For example, 10, K, 5, J, 3 is a running count of -1. Obviously this must be related to the number of cards remaining in the shoe, as, if there are a large number of cards remaining this dissipates the effect or advantage to the player. Hence, the calculation of a “true count” is required. This is done by dividing the running count by the number of decks remaining in the shoe (depending on the system used). This true count provides the player the advantage of knowing approximately the house percentage or his or her own advantage at any stage.

Knowing merely when to bet is not sufficient however, as this must be related to both a betting strategy and a playing strategy.

Betting strategies are generally related to the true count with a base unit being played on a positive count. This of course varies dependent on the player, with some card counters merely waiting for a high positive true count and then placing as many wagers as they can at the table maximum. This method of play brings attention to the player and many authorities on card counting prefer more subtle betting strategies where the counter would never wager more than three to four times the base unit, or strategies which enable a card counter to play and win without being detected by casino management. Betting strategies are important and some “counters” work in teams of two or more. One player keeps a true count on the deck whilst another player is concerned with the betting and playing strategies.

The playing strategies, and/or basic strategy as it is known, is determined by analysing the results of computer simulated Blackjack play over a large number of hands determining what actions provide the player with the best results. The Blackjack program must simulate play as it would occur in the casino, operating within the confines of the game rules. Therefore, basic strategy within Australia varies from State to State as the rules also vary from State to State. However, generally the tables shown in the Appendix provide an outline of good basic play. This is, of course, by no means foolproof but again relies on percentage plays. This basic strategy may also be varied in relation to the true count with some plays being more advantageous when the true count is at a specific level.

For example, although insurance is generally regarded as a bad bet, having a high house percentage, if the true count is excessively positive, insurance may be a good bet for the player.

Similarly other situations vary in accordance with the count. When to hit, stay, double down or split are all important, and of course make the game more interesting to the player.

Therefore, it can be seen that good Blackjack play is a combination of knowing when to bet, how much to bet and the correct method or strategies of play.

To offset the advantages that a good card counter maintains over the house, casino operators and regulators have included counter measures into the Rules of the Game. The argument behind this policy being that if card counters remain unfettered then the operator would lose money and subsequently Blackjack, as a casino game, would cease to exist. These counter measures include exclusion of card counters from the casino, shuffles being initiated by casino supervisors when a known card counter substantially increases a wager, cutting the deck up to two thirds of the way in from the back of the pack and preclusion or restriction to minimum wagers if the player misses the first or any subsequent round of play prior to the reshuffle of cards. Therefore, even though card counting can be by no means described as cheating, it definitely poses problems to both the operator and regulator from a technical aspect.

Another argument is that there are so few technically proficient card counters that they pose no threat to the game, and that these few provide good publicity for the game. This is difficult to present as an argument to a Board of Directors when the Casino you are employed in has just lost $250,000 in a month to a team of card counters. Even though you know that some part of this may have been a function of luck (statistical variance) the good publicity argument is a bit thin.

This “good publicity” argument tends to suggest an aura of complexity on the subject which is not substantiated by the simplicity of the systems themselves.

Most card counting systems are simple, efficient and effective being able to be mastered by anyone with time and patience, and this is one of the real problems with card counting.