Alan Krigman, Dan Pronovost, and John "Skinny" (below) have mathematical formulas showing why Don Johnson of Pennsylvania won more than five million dollars from the AC’s Tropicana. They all state unequivocally that the player had the edge for a relatively short while in which to hammer a nice, fat win – and hammer such a thing Don Johnson did.

The key variable in Johnson’s play had to do with a deal he made with the Tropicana; namely, they would give him back 20 percent of his losses. Now let’s take a really simple, simple look at how this win could accomplished. We’ll just use six hands to show how Johnson got his edge. These examples I’m about to show you are nowhere near accurate but it does give you the flavor of how such a simple thing as a 20 percent rebate on losses can aid a player in getting an edge over the house, if the rebates are given after every individual session.

Session 1: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 2: Johnson loses $1,000

Session 3: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 4: Johnson loses $1,000

Session 5: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 6: Johnson loses $1,000

No win for player.

Let’s take a look at a second scenario where 20 percent of a loss is returned:

Session 1: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 2: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 3: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 4: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 5: Johnson wins $1,000

Session 6: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Player wins $600.

Now obviously, my example is so simple that it is somewhat wrong on several levels. The house edge of about one-half percent has to be taken into consideration, as well as how long a session actually lasted. However, a clear picture is being drawn…at least I believe it is.

Now look at this next scenario:

Session 1: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 2: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 3: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 4: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 5: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 6: Johnson wins $5,000

The win for the player is now $1,000 even though he lost five sessions and won $5,000 in his last session. By returning 20 percent, a push becomes a win for the player.

Final scenario: Johnson loses but still wins:

Session 1: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 2: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 3: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 4: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 5: Johnson loses $1,000 ($200 returned)

Session 6: Johnson wins $4,500

Johnson actually lost money here. He lost $5,000 in first five sessions and only won $4,500 in session #6; normally, a loss of $500. However, with the rebate, he gets back $1,000 of his losses, so now – bingo! – he leaves with $500 more in his pocket than what he started with. He lost and won!

Now, what if the casino only gave back 20 percent of the losses at the end of a trip of, say, five days? Would a single trip give the player the edge as I showed above? For that, and for longer playing sessions, I refer you to our three brilliant authors: Skinny, Alan Krigman, and Dan Pronovost.

Alan Krigman is correct about his premise that the edge will go back to the house the longer you play a single session. I concur with Alan that it is around 500 hands at -.40% and 650 hands at -.35%. However, more importantly, he is correct that the longer one plays a single session, you will eventually eliminate most of the advantage of the rebate.

My logic that he is correct is as follows:

What if you played an infinite number of hands. Eventually, the variance would almost be eliminated and the end result would be extremely close to the exact house advantage. In that situation, you would only be getting back 20% of the loss of the house advantage. Your net loss would always be approximately 80% of the house advantage times the amount you bet. If you continued to play in that manner, you would only be reducing the true house advantage by 20%.

However, if you have a large enough bankroll to sustain extreme losing streaks and can play in the game long enough to overcome the variance that occurs naturally, you will still have an advantage over the house.

The key, as Krigman points out, is to play short sessions. Perhaps you play one shoe at a time and quit. Then you come back later to play one shoe and quit. If the casino considers each one a session and rebates your losses for each of them, you can win over time.

You will be ahead at the end of some shoes and down at the end of other shoes depending on which way the pendulum is swinging. Since you are getting 20% back each time you lose, and keeping 100% each time you win, you still have an advantage. It is just not as big as I originally thought.

Let me use Krigman's figure of -.35% for the house advantage and 650 hands for the player advantage to be eliminated. With a 20% rebate, the player has a +9.685% favorable advantage on the first hand. That positive edge would decrease with each subsequent hand, reaching approximately -0.001% (20% rebate) after 650 hands. It would decrease with each hand played for the first nine hands in the following pattern +9.685%, +4.685%, + 4.685%, +3.435%, +3.435%, +2.810%,+2.810%, +2.420%, +2.420%.

In other words, it would decrease rather rapidly in the first few hands and continue decreasing at a slower rate after that. It would not be a linear decline but rather a curve that is steeper in the beginning and flatter at the end. So even if he played an eight-deck shoe (without counting cards there is no advantage to single deck), for approximately 80 rounds per shoe, he would still have an edge at the end of each shoe. After 80 hands, the player should still have an advantage of around +0.575%.

As long as the player can settle with the house at the end of each shoe and get his rebate, I think this still gives the player enough of an edge that he can win without counting if he plays sound basic strategy.

Krigman has pointed out something that I did not think about in AC. I missed his point that the longer one plays, the more likely the session will end up close to the house advantage and eliminate the big advantage the player has early on in the session. That does not change my mind that a player with a big enough bankroll can overcome that with a rebate on losses agreement.

This is different from saying a player with a big bankroll can stay at the table long enough to overcome a standard house advantage. Gamblers mistakenly believe they can overcome the house advantage by "quitting winners" and using a stop-loss limit. Money management can not overcome a negative expectation game because all the sessions you play become one long session. The sum of those sessions will become the equivalent of the "long run," in which case, the variance is infinitesimally small and the net result is very close to the exact house advantage for the sum of all the sessions.

However, with a rebate offer and a sufficient bankroll, one CAN indeed "quit winners" with a 100% win and stay long enough to overcome the 80% losing streaks.

One of the best dealers I ever played with worked at Trump Marina, now the Golden Nugget, but he was let go when the Golden Nugget took over. His name is Frank…

What? Huh? How? Why?

I asked other dealers, floor personnel, and some other employees why he and several other absolutely-fabulous personnel were let go. What were the criteria for dumping the best of the best? The universal answer was, "We have no idea." Some of the dealers were quite frank too: "Some of the people they kept are not the best dealers. Some they let go are the best!"

One floor person said, "I think they did it by computer lottery."

However, the new Golden Nugget did it, and boy did they screw up. Rehire Frank and make a serious effort to get rid of the lower-tiered dealers and keep the best ones. My lord, doing it how they did it reminds me how government does things…usually poorly.

I went on a tour one weekday of all the casinos in AC but the Claridge was closed. I asked a floor person at Bally’s, why? "We don’t open it during the week any more because the place is deserted. Maybe in the summer if people start showing up."

You know AC is hurting when one of its landmarks is closed; if even temporarily.

"Visitors interested in the party scene can head to Atlantic City's first gay casino nightclub, Prohibition, a 1920s-styled nightclub recently opened on the 13th floor in Resorts Casino Hotel…."

If you wish to contribute your reports or observations, we need to receive them by the 24^th of the month for the next month. Write to: fscobe@optonline.net

Dear Frank and Alene-

I just recently returned from Atlantic City and I will give you my impressions of the casinos and the city.

But first, just read an article in a national newspaper that Atlantic City wants to add more sex appeal and more strip joints like Scores to attract visitors. I wish they would go back to old days with better rules for Blackjack and crowds will follow.

The Boardwalk is still the main attraction as people flock there day and night.

The casinos are a different story:

Taj Mahal: Had some good games but not many tables open so unless you wanted to play in the High Roller Room, you had to move around to find a spot. Casino is so big that even when tables are filled it still seems empty. They are still hitting on Soft 17 but less pit bosses around so you will not get any heat. You can make money here if you hit and run. Rooms are great and restaurants are very good.

Ballys: Good place to play; dealers are friendly and go deep into the cut. The crowd has gone down a little, more low-class wannabe gangsters hanging around. Good place for Golden Touch Black jack.

Hilton: Good games but crowds have gone and place is not busy at all. Quiet so you can concentrate without a lot of distractions. Still hitting soft 17, dealers cut off one and one-half to two decks per shoe. Used to be a great place to play now just average.

I will be making another trip soon will give you more information on other casinos.

Best Regards,

Bubba from Boston

************************************************************************

Want to learn dice control from the masters? Get a copy of our new DVD Beat Craps by Controlling the Dice! [$299 plus $6 shipping] Call 1-800-944-0406.

************************************************************************

Here are our ratings for blackjack for July 2011. We thank many of our readers for helping us to stay as updated as possible. There may be some disagreements in ratings among our correspondents but all these reports are based on individuals’ experience. A word to the wise: it’s always best to check out the casinos for yourselves.

WILD, WILD WEST: Midweek visit; place was almost deserted. The penetration has gone deeper lately and this is a very, very good thing – you might find 80 percent. Crews are friendly. All games are 8-decks; mixture of H17 and S17 from latest reports. Three stars: * * *

10AM -11AM: Introduction to CRAPS and DICE CONTROL with best-selling authors Frank Scoblete and Dominator (1 hr, $89) 

Craps can be beaten but you have to know exactly what elements are necessary to do so. In an analysis of and discussion about proper betting and dice control, best-selling author Frank Scoblete and the world’s greatest dice controller Dominator will go step-by-step through the elements that can make you a winner. They will teach you the right way to play too! Comes with the book: Casino Craps: Shoot to Win! by Frank Scoblete with Dominator.

11:15AM -12:15PM / Also at 4PM – 5PM: ADVANTAGE SLOTS: Get a REAL Edge with gaming columnist Jerry "Stickman" (1 hr, $99)

12:30 PM – 1:30PM: PAI GOW POKER: Get a REAL Edge with gaming columnist John "Skinny" (1hr, $99)

Pai Gow Poker is a fun card game. But many players don't realize they can get a real edge over the casino if they play the game properly. Learn how to do so. Pai Gow can also yield good comps for the player with far less risk than most other games. Learn everything you need to know to get a real edge at this enjoyable game with John "Skinny," the Pai Gow king!

2PM – 3:30PM: You Can Beat BLACKJACK with best-selling author Henry Tamburin (1.5 hrs, $149)