old adage that there are two sides to every story
certainly applies to a recap of the fallout from the
publication of Beat the Dealer. Below is a sampling
of spin (or perhaps revisionist history) provided
by the feuding sides in the casino/card-counter battle.
The card counter's side: Carlson writes, in Online
Blackjack Games for Blood, "Their paranoia out
of control, the Las Vegas casinos snapped! On April
Fool's Day 1964, the casinos on the Las Vegas Strip
changed the rules of Online Blackjack Games, the first
(and only) time the rules of a major casino game had
ever been significantly altered. And the changes were
drastic. Doubling down was restricted to two-card
totals of 11 only, and a pair of aces could no longer
be split. The effect on the average player was disastrous,
and play at the tables all but vanished."
The casino's side: A "suave PR man," in
a Newsweek article dated April 13, 1964, indicates
that the operators eliminated the "fringe benefits"
of the game, namely "the right" to double
most bets and to split hands of two aces.
A third side to the story? Thorp's nonchalant reply
(in the same Newsweek article) to all the hoopla:
"Instead of five hours, now I'll have to play
seven to make the same money."
may seem obvious to someone not to talk publicly about
his game in a public place, but that same person may
freely talk about the game on a portable phone (which
is not very different from a radio) or cell phone
(which is not much harder to tap), it may be harder
to resist talking about t game than you think, especially
after a big win. A spouse who talks about the game
also put it at risk