So, I just finished Bringing Down the House, by Ben Mezrich. I just started the book last Thursday, so it took me less than a week to read it, which I believe makes it the quickest read I've had since I got serious about reading again. And it wasn't particularly short, nor was it a simple read. The book was just compelling enough that I had to keep reading it, going beyond the normal time I set aside to read on a given day. It was just a case of an incredible story meeting up with a gifted story teller.
The book (which is now a major movie that is currently out in theaters) tells the story of a group of MIT students who were made a killing as professional blackjack players (card counters) in the late 90s. The central figure of the story is Jeffrey Ma (in the book, he is referred to as Kevin Lewis). The book tracks him through his recruitment, training and testing, his widely successful play, the double life he led and the various complications of that, and the crackdown on his team that eventually led him to give up the life.
As I said, Ben Mezrich is clearly a gifted storyteller, and he did an excellent job of really getting into Ma's head and laying out his motivations, his various internal conflicts at times, and other things like that. And the story itself is just a thriller, that happens to be true, especially as the casinos begin to track the team and try to dissuade them. Card counter isn't illegal (it's not actually cheating), but obviously casinos aren't a big fan of people who can beat their games, and man, did these guys beat them. In an interview that was added to the end of the book in the movie tie-in release, Ma states that in his roughly 5 years of counting, his team never failed to return at least a 30 percent profit to their investors. Ridiculous.
Part of my attraction to the book was that, as a recovering "math geek" myself, it made being a "math geek" come off as very, very cool. Also, probably my favorite comedy of all time is Ocean's 11, and this story had very much the same feel - the brilliant heroes versus the "evil" casinos. This story also had the added advantages of the heroes not actually being criminals, so there was no reason at all not to root for them. And it was true, on top of everything.
So yeah, this was a best-seller almost 5 years ago, so many people haven't read it, but I'd highly recommend it to any holdouts. Mezrich has written 3 other books since then (only one other about Vegas), and I'm definitely going to plan to work through those books over time. Next up on my non-fiction list is much more a niche book, The 33 Year Old Rookie, by current Phillies backup catcher, Chris Coste. Coste's story probably doesn't hold a lot of inherent interest to someone who isn't Phillies fan, but I've been fascinated with the guy since he made his Phillies (and major league) debut in the spring of '06.
2 months ago
7 comments:
I might have to add it to my list of books to read, which continues to grow and grow and grow....
:)
It was the Ocean's 11 comparison that won you over, wasn't it?
Perhaps, perhaps.
:)
I used to play blackjack as a part-time job (card counting, of course). I am, in fact, a math geek, but it's a common misapprehension that you have to be a math geek to card count. All you need is good concentration and the ability to add and subtract one instantly from any number. I did not, at any point, think of myself as a hero nor the casino as evil.
In my opinion, not only is card counting not cheating (it's simply skillful play), but the casinos should allow it. The only thing they should disallow are card-counting "teams" where floating players come to put big bets down on highly advantageous decks in mid-shoe. I believe the casinos will make more money allowing card counting than they'd lose. Regular players will come in, thinking that they can win, and will give the casinos more money than the skillful card counters take from them. Card counting isn't mathematically strenuous, but like all good gambling, it takes discipline which most people and, especially, most gamblers lack.
People are forever asking me why I don't gamble for a living and I always tell them that the same discipline which allows me to gamble successfully means that it just isn't as enjoyable to me as it seems to be to everyone else. I don't get big thrills out of winning nor do I hit big lows when I'm losing. It's just a job to me. It's not nearly as glamorous or exciting as people seem to think; I find it pure drudgery, whether it's taking money from the casinos at blackjack or proving that there are more optimists than mathematicians at the table at poker. Those people who get very excited by gambling have to pay a price for this propensity.
Moreover, the strain is a problem. You've got to put up a fairly substantial roll for the enterprise to be worthwhile and that means that a long losing streak (which inevitably happens) can do you a large amount of potential damage, even forcing you to quit while behind if the casino busts you. This didn't happen to me; I quit while I was still substantially ahead, but it's a real risk. There was at least once when I was only a few hands away from busting out completely before my luck turned around and I made it all back. You can make this a very small risk by betting only a very small fraction of your available bankroll on any given hand, but then it seems like you could get a better return by investing the bankroll instead (particularly if your time is valuable enough).
Have you read the book?
I just ask because a lot of what you talk about is the kind of stuff that is discussed/demonstrated in the book. These guys didn't really even consider themselves gamblers, though they did live that life to fit in. And the book also mentions that, in general, the casinos don't really care that much about the individual card counters. You're correct, their view is that they'll make more off the people that think they know how to count than they'll lose off those who actually can.
And you're right, you don't necessarily need to be a math geek to count cards, but the subjects of the book most definitely were.
Never read the book, no. I'd never even heard of the book until your post. (Though I had heard of the events upon which it is based.) Since I'm well past my gambling phase, I stopped reading the literature.
I'm not sure they're right that casinos don't care about individual card counters, but I'm certain it depends on the casino. I know that a couple of pit bosses (at an enormous casino) figured out I was counting and left me alone presumably because A) the stakes I was playing for were too small for them to care and B) it's generally bad PR to throw a person out because they're winning. Smaller casinos can be less tolerant than that.
I do know that it is not legal for a casino in Atlantic City to eject card counters. (The Gaming Commission ruled that it was skillful play and forbade casinos from banning it.) Atlantic City responded with more frequent shuffling and prohibiting mid-shoe entry. I rarely back-counted and entered in mid-shoe just because that's really easy to detect and they probably would have thrown me out for that.
By the way, do take a look at this link about the book. Apparently, there are completely fictional events in the book. I must say that all of the ones that were mentioned would have raised my alarms. (Casinos don't beat people up or break into people's homes.)
Post a Comment