This is very clever by the casinos you may say but the players have a counter strategy. Card counting is utilised by increasing the bets to large amounts when there are lots of high cards remaining in the shoe used by the dealer. The players keep a running count of how many low cards compared to high cards remaining in the deck and then when the count is in their favour they increase their bets. When done correctly, this puts the mathematical edge into the players favour. Casinos obviously hate this strategy because in the long term they are the losers.

In all blackjack games and indeed any casino games if you, the player, are deemed to be unprofitable for the casino (i.e. you win) you can be barred from the games. It is difficult to disguise the counting as it is obvious at what point your bet increases and a pit boss may be watching and keeping count also to spot any would be card counting players before they start to win. At any time you can be asked to leave or simply told you may no longer play blackjack. The casinos are under no obligation to allow you to continue playing; they are a business after all.

What is paradoxical about the casinos and their approach to card counting is that in America, and indeed some casinos in the UK, you can buy books teaching you how to card count from the casino merchandise shops. There was a high profile court case where a player was banned from playing at a casino and funds were seized because the casino said the card counting was cheating. The casino was forced to pay back the money taken from the player when it was discovered that he had bought the Blackjack strategy book from the casino shop!

There are instances when card counting helps the casinos win. In the short term, casinos can profit from a card counter because the actual edge for card counters is minimal, around 1%. Increasing the bets by a large amounts means real losses can be large if the dealer continues to hit nice cards. Any poker players reading this article knows that occasionally opponents hit the miracle one card to win. When the odds are only 1% in the players favour it is easy to see the casinos can still hurt you despite you playing a perfect Blackjack card counting strategy.

The casinos also profit from card counters making errors. Players must be able to play the standard optimal blackjack strategy, keep the count then utilise the right bets when conditions allow. They must maintain the count and be able to reduce their bets when conditions are no longer in their favour, when the count returns to normal levels. This requires discipline. If you add the emotional aspects of either winning or losing large amounts during this time card counting is not easy and not suited to everyone. This is why casinos watch a card counter and once it is decided that they are able to utilise the strategy correctly to win, only then do the casinos look to stop you playing.

If you do decide to count cards, follow the advice to the movie “21” and do plenty of practise sessions at home. Money can be made, but the casinos will probably ban you if you win too much.

By Malcolm Clarke

Professional Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey) is the leader of the team and uses his role as Professor of Mathematics to find students with the necessary skills to master and utilise his strategy. It turns out that Rosa is a former hustler of Blackjack, but we do not learn why he does not play until later in the movie. His excuse of “I used to play, now I’m retired” does not seem to ring true, and we learn why later.

The group are thwarted by Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) who is a tough old-school security man for the casinos that uses violence to dissuade card counters from plying their trade in his casinos. The casinos, however, are using new technology to catch card counters and he faces a struggle to survive, making him ever more desperate to prove his worth before time runs out.

As the group implodes thanks to the other big player Fisher becoming jealous of Campbell’s natural ability and skill, Ben takes a loss and the more ruthless side of Mickey Rosa comes out. Campbell, aware that casino securities are catching up on his strategies asks for one last trip, with Rosa as the other big player. But all is not what it seems, for everyone. The ending is satisfactory and the film ending suggests there will not be a sequel. It is not a biopic of the MIT blackjack team, more of a drama based loosely on the documented live events.

The movie was critically slammed for not providing a true image of gambling using card counting techniques. It made the edge look a lot larger with the count showing the team winning and winning easily. There was no mention of the card count and the true count and casinos actually welcomed the movie as it gave a distorted view of card counting. However, with a budget of $35 million the film grossed $157,000,000 making it an extremely successful movie at the box office. One criticism of the characters were they were too egotistical and real gamblers would not behave the way they do. However, the film does play on the exuberance of the young players involved getting carried away so their behaviour, in my opinion, is realistic when placed into the context of the film.

Jim Sturgess acts the role of the vulnerable and starry eyed Campbell extremely well. It is no surprise he has gone on to further acting success. Spacey is accomplished and ruthless as Professor Rosa. Kate Bosworth plays the experienced worldly wise character of Jill who loves the game well and the supporting cast are all able to play their slightly caricature-esque roles very well indeed. Laurence Fishburne, famous for his role as Morpheus in the Matrix Trilogy, is a convincing villain, but it is a testament to his acting ability we still empathise with his reasons for his violence. Although not a true depiction of gambling in Las Vegas, this movie is entertaining and full of good acting.

Anyone who is a fan of poker, Las Vegas, gambling or Blackjack and casino games will enjoy this movie. In fact, anyone who enjoys an engaging film with a good ending will find this movie satisfying. I would give this movie a five star rating, if we gave ratings.

By Malcolm Clarke