Don Johnson Blackjack

• Don Johnson Blackjack Net Worth
• Don Johnson Gambler Strategy

I attended a talk he gave several years ago. He mainly spoke of the loss rebates, but he never denied other advantage plays were involved. From word-of-mouth, I hear he was also counting cards (but not so aggressively as to get caught) and inducing dealer errors in his favor. I'm not big on quoting 'word of mouth,' but that's all I've got.

The Strategy Of Don Johnson – A Legend Who Won Over $15 Million On Blackjack October 3, 2019 General Gambling News by Kristina Vujadinovic Every casino enthusiast knows the name, Don Johnson. Blackjack pro Don Johnson Not to be confused with the Miami Vice star, Don Johnson of Bensalem, PA is a 49-year-old business executive. Often dressed in sweatshirts, baseball hats. Don Johnson won nearly $6 million playing blackjack in one night, single-handedly decimating the monthly revenue of Atlantic City's Tropicana casino. Blackjack flash game. Not long before that, he'd taken the. It's about the high roller who won so much money playing blackjack. Don Johnson is a high roller who beat casinos in Atlantic City for $15 million dollars in 2010 and 2011. And he did it without counting cards. (In fact, you can't count cards in Atlantic City, because they shuffle the cards after every hand.). Between December and April, a gambler named Don Johnson, playing single blackjack hands of up to $100,000, reportedly walked away from Atlantic City's tables with a cool $15 million.

He was flat betting, to the best of my memory, but was making play decisions based on the count. He encouraged fast sloppy dealing, and stated that he was getting at least 1 average bet per hour in dealer mistakes in his favor.
He had mathematically figured out EXACTLY the proper win/loss points to end his session. His loss rebate was per session.
There are a lot of people making decisions to allow players to take liberties with either the math, or with the rules (I'm looking at you Phil Ivey). That is why it is so important to have table games management who know how the games work, and how and why the house makes money.FCBLComishHere is an explanation by our own Telliot.
https://www.blackjackapprenticeship.com/don-johnson-blackjack/
From the article...
I thought, 'I'm a Ph.D. mathematician; I can do that!' I got to work to figure out how Don Johnson did it. The main advantage that Johnson negotiated was a 'loss rebate.' Simply put, if he lost money during a trip, then a percentage of his losses would be returned. This is a common incentive for high-rollers, but it is usually accompanied by a requirement for a minimum amount of play. Typically the high-roller is required to play at least 12 hours to qualify for his rebate. This play requirement allows the casino to earn enough 'theoretical win' to compensate for the cost of the rebates when they are given. What gave Johnson the edge was that his loss rebate incentive had no minimum play requirement. Here are the details:
◾The blackjack rules were 6 decks, DOA, DAS, S17, LSR, RSA, with a house edge of 0.263%.
◾ The table maximum wager was $100,000.
◾Don Johnson could claim a 20% rebate on his losses any time he lost $500,000 or more.
◾There was no minimum play requirement.
◾The loss rebate reset every day.
It's easy to see that this structure can be beaten. If Johnson simply quit for the day after either winning $500,000 or losing $500,000, then on his winning days he would keep the full amount, but on the losing days he would only lose $400,000 (after his 20% rebate). With a $100,000 wager, these quit points (winning or losing 5 units) would likely occur after just a few hands. But blackjack is so close to an even game that playing a few hands is about the same as a coin-flip. It follows that with this trivial strategy Johnson would win, on average, slightly less than $50,000 per day. But could he do better? The key to optimizing Johnson's winnings was to determine his best 'win/loss quit points.' These are the profit-maximizing win/loss dollar values at which Don Johnson would leave for the day and either keep his winnings or collect his rebate. I dusted off my old 'Stochastic Processes' book from graduate school and soon proved a sequence of three theorems I call the 'Loss Rebate Theorems'. When the 'Loss Rebate Theorem' spreadsheet was used to analyze Don Johnson's 20% loss rebate program, assuming a $100,000 wager, it yielded the following:
◾Don Johnson should quit after winning $2,411,000.
◾Don Johnson should quit after losing $2,597,000.
◾The probability of hitting the win-quit point in any given session was 49.07%.
◾Don Johnson was playing with an effective edge over the house of about 0.26%.

Don Johnson Blackjack Net Worth

◾On average, the number of expected rounds to reach a quit point was 481.
◾On average, the expected win per day for Don Johnson was $125,000.

Don Johnson Gambler Strategy

However, that's not what he did.

Exactly. When Don Johnson played for 12 hours for example and simply left ahead, there was no rebate involved. You gotta lose first to get a rebate.
But try to explain this simple concept, or much of anything else to billryan, well..I'll leave it to someone else to try.

Another thing Johnson did is have other players jump in to eat up bad cards. I've actually done that quite successfully, I've had my friend sit at first base, and play small, with me the big player at second. When I felt that I needed it, I would have him take hits.
Of course, here comes billryan, who hasn't played in a casino in years, here to explain why that doesn't or wouldn't matter..
Don Johnson won. I win. When someone comes in and explains Repeatedly why it couldn't happen wouldn't happen nothing the player did would make a difference, that tells me..that the someone, lost.
And then as far as the statement that a 20% loss rebate ensures a player win, we all get 15 - 20% comps against our losses, if we end up straight losing. Some whales get 10% off their losing markers. So if you think about our little equation along THEM lines, every gambler would be a winner over all, if you consider the net cash and prizes, IF this theory were correct. Every gambler would figure, 'Well if can negotiate 20% comps against my losses no matter what I'll always be better off gambling than paying straight cash for my trips.'

But in any case, rebates against losses had nothing to do with the big wins Johnson had, these were more about getting up and leaving when he was ahead. There was no rebate involved in those huge wins because he didn't lose in those particular huge win sessions in the first place.

I attended a talk he gave several years ago. He mainly spoke of the loss rebates, but he never denied other advantage plays were involved. From word-of-mouth, I hear he was also counting cards (but not so aggressively as to get caught) and inducing dealer errors in his favor. I'm not big on quoting 'word of mouth,' but that's all I've got.

If we assume he was counting cards. How would that help while flat betting? Can the edge shift in the players favour just by using Basic Strategy deviations? (Illustrious 18 with Surrender).
Is there a new method of counting that he figured out that tracks 5's and Ace's? - He has frequently said that he hired PhD Mathematics to help him with his play.

If we assume he was counting cards. How would that help while flat betting? Can the edge shift in the players favour just by using Basic Strategy deviations? (Illustrious 18 with Surrender).
Is there a new method of counting that he figured out that tracks 5's and Ace's? - He has frequently said that he hired PhD Mathematics to help him with his play.

Given that he was flat betting and counting cards to make strategy decisions, there is no way that he simply counts high cards vs low cards.
For a 16 vs 10 decision, the presence of 5s in the deck increases the EV of hitting. The presence of 6s in the deck increases the EV of standing. So, you use a count system that gives opposite values to 5 and 6.
For a 10 vs 10 decision (Hit or Double) the only thing that matters is whether or not the remaining cards in the shoe have a surplus of Aces. If the surplus of Aces is large enough in the remaining shoe, you Double. It has nothing to do with the abundance of 5s or Tens, or low cards vs high cards.
I have worked this all out for many of the close call decisions -there are many besides the illustrious 18, which were originally picked because they are sensitive to the abundance of high vs low cards. I can write an article about it if anyone is interested. It is powerful for single deck or double deck BJ, but less powerful for 6-8 decks.The slight advantage to advantage play over the course of as few hands as Johnson played especially given the flat betting can't explain entirely his huge winning streaks. Just plain luck and leaving while ahead before the lucky streak ended, actually make more sense, in his case.
Just as if you're getting 12s and 13s all night you'll lose no matter what the count is, if you're getting 20s or hitting to 21 all night you'll win no matter what the count too.

One night I was playing a single deck and almost every hand I was winning, either getting blackjacks, twenties or hitting to twenty one no matter how crappy my first two cards were. The house tried everything to break my streak, changing dealers, changing decks, shuffling after each deal, nothing worked I just kept winning up to a peak of just under $70K. I wasn't even betting that much around $800. per hand but I just couldn't lose that night. If Johnson had a run like that or even close to a run like that easy to see how he'd win millions in one session.
I've seen a BJ player go from his last five thousand dollar chip to practically draining the dealer's tray, or Baccarat players go from ten grand up to a million. But more often than not they keep playing, and lose it all. Ever heard of the no shoes bandit (speaking of the homeless)? Look it up. Walking after a winning streak is key. If everyone in Vegas stopped playing after losing half his winnings Vegas would go dark by the end of the year. Ask any pit boss, they've seen it all: 'Why do people lose?' - 'Because they won't quit while ahead.'
That Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes. Not hard to see how or why the mattress millionaire ended up selling off his companies to pay gambling debts, eventually fired as an officer of his former companies, and finally, a broke Uber driver. The house advantage isn't what did him in so quickly - it was his inability to stop when ahead, making it so that he never had any winning sessions.
You just can't undervalue the value of quitting while ahead.

That Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes. Not hard to see how or why the mattress millionaire ended up selling off his companies to pay gambling debts, eventually fired as an officer of his former companies, and finally, a broke Uber driver.

Not only his losing ruined his life, that documentary put acid on his wound. I also saw the online screen shot of him driving for Uber. I always wonder if he got more credit and over did it on that particular trip to save his face from the documentary.RS

Don Johnson Blackjack Net Worth

◾On average, the number of expected rounds to reach a quit point was 481.
◾On average, the expected win per day for Don Johnson was $125,000.

Don Johnson Gambler Strategy

However, that's not what he did.

Exactly. When Don Johnson played for 12 hours for example and simply left ahead, there was no rebate involved. You gotta lose first to get a rebate.
But try to explain this simple concept, or much of anything else to billryan, well..I'll leave it to someone else to try.
Another thing Johnson did is have other players jump in to eat up bad cards. I've actually done that quite successfully, I've had my friend sit at first base, and play small, with me the big player at second. When I felt that I needed it, I would have him take hits.
Of course, here comes billryan, who hasn't played in a casino in years, here to explain why that doesn't or wouldn't matter..
Don Johnson won. I win. When someone comes in and explains Repeatedly why it couldn't happen wouldn't happen nothing the player did would make a difference, that tells me..that the someone, lost.
And then as far as the statement that a 20% loss rebate ensures a player win, we all get 15 - 20% comps against our losses, if we end up straight losing. Some whales get 10% off their losing markers. So if you think about our little equation along THEM lines, every gambler would be a winner over all, if you consider the net cash and prizes, IF this theory were correct. Every gambler would figure, 'Well if can negotiate 20% comps against my losses no matter what I'll always be better off gambling than paying straight cash for my trips.'
But in any case, rebates against losses had nothing to do with the big wins Johnson had, these were more about getting up and leaving when he was ahead. There was no rebate involved in those huge wins because he didn't lose in those particular huge win sessions in the first place.

I attended a talk he gave several years ago. He mainly spoke of the loss rebates, but he never denied other advantage plays were involved. From word-of-mouth, I hear he was also counting cards (but not so aggressively as to get caught) and inducing dealer errors in his favor. I'm not big on quoting 'word of mouth,' but that's all I've got.

If we assume he was counting cards. How would that help while flat betting? Can the edge shift in the players favour just by using Basic Strategy deviations? (Illustrious 18 with Surrender).
Is there a new method of counting that he figured out that tracks 5's and Ace's? - He has frequently said that he hired PhD Mathematics to help him with his play.

If we assume he was counting cards. How would that help while flat betting? Can the edge shift in the players favour just by using Basic Strategy deviations? (Illustrious 18 with Surrender).
Is there a new method of counting that he figured out that tracks 5's and Ace's? - He has frequently said that he hired PhD Mathematics to help him with his play.

Given that he was flat betting and counting cards to make strategy decisions, there is no way that he simply counts high cards vs low cards.
For a 16 vs 10 decision, the presence of 5s in the deck increases the EV of hitting. The presence of 6s in the deck increases the EV of standing. So, you use a count system that gives opposite values to 5 and 6.
For a 10 vs 10 decision (Hit or Double) the only thing that matters is whether or not the remaining cards in the shoe have a surplus of Aces. If the surplus of Aces is large enough in the remaining shoe, you Double. It has nothing to do with the abundance of 5s or Tens, or low cards vs high cards.
I have worked this all out for many of the close call decisions -there are many besides the illustrious 18, which were originally picked because they are sensitive to the abundance of high vs low cards. I can write an article about it if anyone is interested. It is powerful for single deck or double deck BJ, but less powerful for 6-8 decks.The slight advantage to advantage play over the course of as few hands as Johnson played especially given the flat betting can't explain entirely his huge winning streaks. Just plain luck and leaving while ahead before the lucky streak ended, actually make more sense, in his case.
Just as if you're getting 12s and 13s all night you'll lose no matter what the count is, if you're getting 20s or hitting to 21 all night you'll win no matter what the count too.
One night I was playing a single deck and almost every hand I was winning, either getting blackjacks, twenties or hitting to twenty one no matter how crappy my first two cards were. The house tried everything to break my streak, changing dealers, changing decks, shuffling after each deal, nothing worked I just kept winning up to a peak of just under $70K. I wasn't even betting that much around $800. per hand but I just couldn't lose that night. If Johnson had a run like that or even close to a run like that easy to see how he'd win millions in one session.
I've seen a BJ player go from his last five thousand dollar chip to practically draining the dealer's tray, or Baccarat players go from ten grand up to a million. But more often than not they keep playing, and lose it all. Ever heard of the no shoes bandit (speaking of the homeless)? Look it up. Walking after a winning streak is key. If everyone in Vegas stopped playing after losing half his winnings Vegas would go dark by the end of the year. Ask any pit boss, they've seen it all: 'Why do people lose?' - 'Because they won't quit while ahead.'
That Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes. Not hard to see how or why the mattress millionaire ended up selling off his companies to pay gambling debts, eventually fired as an officer of his former companies, and finally, a broke Uber driver. The house advantage isn't what did him in so quickly - it was his inability to stop when ahead, making it so that he never had any winning sessions.
You just can't undervalue the value of quitting while ahead.

That Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes. Not hard to see how or why the mattress millionaire ended up selling off his companies to pay gambling debts, eventually fired as an officer of his former companies, and finally, a broke Uber driver.

Not only his losing ruined his life, that documentary put acid on his wound. I also saw the online screen shot of him driving for Uber. I always wonder if he got more credit and over did it on that particular trip to save his face from the documentary.RS

High limit slots. It may be there were never losses made on which to give rebate. That's part of the counter intuitive aspects of loss rebate bonuses: You don't have to ever make a loss to benefit from them.
E.g. If you are offered a 100% loss rebate on a $1,000 wager on a coin toss and win the coin toss, then was the loss rebate valuable $:o)

Yes because otherwise I wouldn't have made the bet.
@PinkJack -- he had a loss rebate, no upgraded basic strategy, etc. Getting the math perfectly accurate can be difficult, but the logic should be simple to grasp: If you win, you keep that money..if you lose, you get some of it back..add the two together, and you're ahead.

• Page 4 of 12