See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280124325

Using behavioral skills training and video

rehearsal to teach blackjack skills

Article in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis July 2015

DOI: 10.1002/jaba.225 Source: PubMed

CITATION READS
1 32

3 authors, including:
Ryan Speelman Seth Whiting
Pittsburg State University Central Michigan University
8 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 24 PUBLICATIONS 59 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Speelman on 30 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2015, 48, 111 NUMBER 3 (FALL)

USING BEHAVIORAL SKILLS TRAINING AND VIDEO REHEARSAL TO

TEACH BLACKJACK SKILLS
RYAN C. SPEELMAN, SETH W. WHITING, AND MARK R. DIXON
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE

A behavioral skills training procedure that consisted of video instructions, video rehearsal, and
video testing was used to teach 4 recreational gamblers a specific skill in playing
blackjack (sometimes called card counting). A multiple baseline design was used to evaluate
intervention effects on card-counting accuracy and chips won or lost across participants.
Before training, no participant counted cards accurately. Each participant completed all
phases of the training protocol, counting cards fluently with 100% accuracy during changing
speed criterion training exercises. Generalization probes were conducted while participants
played blackjack in a mock casino following each training phase. Afterwards, all 4 participants
were able to count cards while they played blackjack. In conjunction with count accuracy,
total winnings were tracked to determine the monetary advantages associated with counting
cards. After losing money during baseline, 3 of 4 participants won a substantial amount of
money playing blackjack after the intervention.
Key words: behavioral skills training, video rehearsal, video testing, gambling, blackjack
An estimated 7.5 million Americans (2.4%) same amount of time for $50. When irrational
are classified as either problem or pathological risks are taken and errors in choice making (e.g.,
gamblers. Although problem gambling repre- cards held, numbers to wager on, doubling
sents a significant societal problem, the propor- down) occur, the gambler is performing at
tion of the population addicted to gambling is less than optimal levels.
relatively small, in that approximately 126 Blackjack is one of the most popular table
million Americans placed a legal wager within games offered in casinos. It is a card game in
the last year and upwards of 86% reported which the player tries to obtain a winning
gambling at least once in their lifetime hand by collecting a total numerical value of
(National Gambling Impact Commission cards that is higher than the dealers card total
Report, 1999). For individuals who are not but does not exceed 21 (Golden, 2011).
pathological gamblers, gambling is largely a Several players may play at once; however, each
recreational activity. Americans spend more is playing against the dealer. The value of each
on legal gam- bling activities than on card is equivalent to the face value of the card,
recorded music, theme parks, video games, with face cards (jacks, queens, kings) assigned
spectator sports, and movie tickets combined a value of 10 and aces a value of 1 or 11
(National Gambling Impact Commission (chosen by the player). After the player places a
Report, 1999). Because this pas- time does bet, two cards are dealt face up to the player.
require risking financial resources, it is The dealer is dealt one card face up and another
important for gamblers to maximize their face down. After a player has received both
entertainment while they minimize the associ- cards, he or she has the option to either hit,
ated expense. Gambling for 2 hr at a cost of stand, double down, or split. A player
$200 would be less preferred than gambling who chooses to hit receives additional cards,
for that hoping that the cards will bring him or her
closer to 21. A player who stands declines the
Correspondence concerning this article should be opportunity to draw more cards; this is
addressed to Mark R. Dixon, Behavior Analysis and generally done when a player has a hand at or
Therapy Program, Rehabilitation Institute, Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901 (e-mail: near 21. Doubling down involves doubling a
mdixon@siu.edu). bet after seeing two initial cards, with the
doi: 10.1002/jaba.225 agreement that the player will

1
2 RYAN C.BLACKJACK
SPEELMANSKILLS
et al. 2

receive only one additional card. Hands of 10 overcome when the game was played optimally.
or Thorp (1966) found that if the
11 are commonly doubled down because of
the high probability of drawing a 10 card and
thus having a total hand of 20 or 21. Splitting
occurs when a player receives two matching
cards (aces, eights, etc.) and elects to play each
as a separate hand. Basic strategy dictates that a
gambler split aces because of the high
probability of drawing a
10 card that will result in a total of 21. A
player continues to play the hand, drawing as
many cards as needed, until he or she exceeds
21 or stands, electing to draw no other cards.
The dealer must continue to draw cards or hit
until his or her hand is 17 or greater. Only then
may a dealer stand. A hand greater than 21 is
said to bust or lose. After both the player and
the dealer stand, the total numerical value of
the players hand is compared to the dealers. If
a player has a hand closer to 21 than the dealer
but does not exceed 21, the player has won. If
the dealer has a hand closer to but not exceeding
21, the dealer has won. Ties are known as a
push, which results in the return of the
initial bet to each player. After each hand,
the dealer either collects the players loss or
pays the players winnings. Comprehensive
strategies for when to hit, stand, split, or double
down have been developed and are widely
available on the Internet and in gaming stores
(see Thorp, 1966, for an overview of basic
strategy).
The house or casino typically will hold a
statistical advantage over the patron; however,
an individual may gain an advantage by
counting cards. In most games of chance,
the law of independent trials applies. That is,
the outcome of each trial does not depend in
any way on previous outcomes. However, in
blackjack, the trials are not independent; as the
game is played, previous hands influence what
cards are still available in succeeding rounds.
The composition of the deck changes and the
advantage alternates between the player and
the casino. Edward Thorp, a professor of
mathematics, proved mathematically that the
house advantage in blackjack could be
 3 RYAN C.BLACKJACK
SPEELMANSKILLS
remaining deck had a surplus of 10 and ace
cards, the player had a higher statistical
advantage of winning. Conversely, the dealer or
casino holds a slight advantage when there are
more low cards in the deck. He developed a
counting system in which a player can track the
number of high and low cards that have been
dealt, known as the point-count system. Using
Thorps system, low cards, including twos,
threes, fours, fives, and sixes, are assigned a
point value of 1. Ten-value cards and aces
are assigned a point value of 1, and sevens,
eights, and nines are assigned a value of 0. As
the game is played a player adds, subtracts,
or does nothing to the point-count total after
each card is dealt. Using the point- count
system, a player is able to track the number of
low- and high-value cards that have been dealt,
thereby removing them from the deck (Golden,
2011). A statistical advantage occurs when the
point count is positive, indicating that there is
a higher amount of 10 or ace cards to be
dealt relative to the number of low cards. Thorp
found that the advantage typically ranges from
10% to
et al. 3
100% for either side. Card counting allows the
player to take advantage of these fluctuations by
placing larger bets when the game is advanta-
geous and smaller bets when it is not (Anderson,
2012). Players who count cards and adjust their
bets according to the total point count will
gradually win money over time.
The point-count system described, also
known as card counting, is not prohibited by
federal, state, or local law. In the case of Uston v.
Resorts International Hotel Inc., the New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Atlantic City
casinos could not bar card counters from
playing in their casinos (American Gaming
Association, 2010). Despite controversy, card
counting provides the blackjack player with a
valid strategy in which to gain a statistical
advantage. Due to the popularity of blackjack
and the technical skill required to build
fluency and utilize correct betting strat- egies,
the development of proper teaching
methods are of value. Thorps book was a
New York Times best seller, and Internet
searches of
card-counting strategies will yield hundreds of
web pages that offer advice. These facts, coupled
with the many thousands of people who play
blackjack on a recreational basis, suggest that
skilled playing is a socially valid goal. We want
to be clear that we are not advocating chronic
and habitual gambling; to the contrary, we
aim to teach a skill that will make the game
enjoyable to the typical player. The use of
behavioral skills training (BST) may aid in the
development of appropriate skills needed to
gain an advantage. A training program should
promote highly accu- rate, rapid responding
that will generalize beyond the treatment
environment to the casino floor.
Behavioral skills training is a method that
typically uses instructions, modeling,
rehearsing, and feedback to teach complex
skills. It has been used to teach a variety of
socially valid skills including prevention of
sexual abuse (Milten- berger et al., 1999),
prevention of gun play (Miltenberger et al.,
2004), and safe sexual behavior (St.
Lawrence, Jefferson, Alleyne, & Brasfield,
1995). Johnson et al. (2005) found that BST
could improve abduction-prevention skills in
preschoolers. Children were taught to say no
and immediately walk or run away when
presented with an abduction lure by a
confeder- ate. Miltenberger et al. (2004)
used BST to improve the firearm safety skills
of 6- and 7-year- old children. Miltenberger et
al. (1999) suggested that, for future BST to
generalize and maintain, in situ assessments
should be incorporated into BST so that natural
settings are more likely to exert control over
the behavior. In addition to BST, video
modeling has been empirically validated as an
effective tool to teach a variety of skills
including gymnastic talents (Boyer,
Miltenberger, Batsche, & Fogel, 2009).
Gymnasts in this study were given a video
model of experts performing various gymnastic
moves that were central to each participants
training. Results showed that video modeling
improved skill performance more quickly
than regular practice and coaching alone.
Most important, skills acquired via video
modeling and video feedback generalized to
the natural environment, and performance
accuracy was maintained during follow-up
probes. Addi- tional studies have shown that
behavioral procedures may improve
performance in swim- ming (McKenzie &
Rushall, 1974) and football (Smith & Ward,
2006).
The purpose of the present study was to
examine an intervention that consisted of
video instructions, video rehearsal, and testing
to teach a card-counting strategy to adults with
no current or previous history of pathological
gambling. Tests for generalization were then
conducted throughout training to determine if
the acquired skills generalized to a real
blackjack table. In addition, the running total
of the monetary earnings of each participant
was tracked to determine whether the count-
ing system provided a meaningful advantage to
the player.
METHOD
Participants, Setting, and Materials
Four female recreational blackjack players
were recruited for inclusion in the study. Each
player was screened using the South Oaks
Gambling Screen assessment (SOGS; Lesieur &
Blume, 1987) to ensure that they were not
pathological gamblers. The SOGS is a 20-item
questionnaire frequently used to screen for
gambling pathology. Scores on the SOGS range
from 0 to 20, with scores of 5 or higher
characterized as a pathological level. The SOGS
has been shown to be a valid measurement when
compared with the DSM-IV criterion for
pathological gambling (see Gambino &
Lesieur,
2006). No participants scored higher than 3 on
the SOGS; therefore, none were excused from
the study, and all completed the entire
experiment. Participants completed the study
in an office setting and in a mock casino. The
training area consisted of a small office room
with a desk, chair, and laptop computer. The
mock casino was a room (8 m by 5 m) that
contained four slot machines, a roulette table, a
craps table, and a blackjack table.
The setting simulated an experience in an After each hand on the blackjack table, the
actual casino. The rules, speed, and game experimenter asked the participant for the count.
play of blackjack matched those in an If the participants count matched the actual
actual casino. Each participant played on an count, the trial was counted as accurate.
actual blackjack table complete with a chip tray,
Failures to match the correct count were
betting circle, card shoe, and basic rules posted
scored as inaccurate. Responses were
on the table. combined into trial blocks of 10 hands, and
Training videos were created by the re- accuracy was calculated as the number of
searchers and consisted of video instructions,accurate responses divided by
video rehearsal, video rehearsal at one-half 10 and converted to a percentage. After 10 trials
speed, video testing at one-half speed, video were completed, the count returned to 0 and a
rehearsal at three-fourths speed, video testing
new deck was placed in play. In addition to
at three-fourths speed, video rehearsal at full
card- counting accuracy, the number of chips
speed, and video testing at full speed. held by the player was recorded in order to
Instructions included a basic rationale and gauge the effectiveness of the counting system.
explanation of which cards to count and After each trial the experimenters added
whether to add or subtract a point when each winnings or deducted losses from the players
of those cards was dealt. During rehearsal total, depend- ing on the outcome of the hand,
videos, the experimenter dealt one card at a and recorded the dollar value of chips the
time face up on the table, stating the count player owned.
after each card was dealt for the entire deck. To ensure accurate observations, a second
Video tests consisted of the experimenter independent observer scored the players
dealing each card face up and pausing 10 card count for 36% of sessions and the
times (after approximately every fifth card) to
number of chips during all sessions after
ask the participant the count. The locations of
15.7% of trials. For each instance the
the pauses were selected by the
participant was asked to provide the count,
experimenters before filming so that they both independent observers referenced a chart
were evenly distributed throughout the deck. detailing the exact count for each card dealt
This was to ensure that each participant during video tests. Because each deck was
was required to count cards accurately from precounted, the experimenters knew the count
the beginning to the end of the deck in based on the last card placed in play. During
order to respond correctly at each pause. generalization probes, each hand played on the
Participants were not given the count
blackjack table was kept separate, because
during testing videos and instead were the cards dealt in each hand served as a
required to count the cards and state the permanent product to score the count. After
count aloud or write the count when 10 hands were dealt, the experimenter and
prompted by video. Training videos were independent observer referenced the cards in
recorded on a real blackjack table in the each hand and compared them to the count
mock casino. Three testing videos were that was recorded by the experimenter. Reli-
made for each speed (one-half, three- ability was calculated using a point-by-point
fourths, and full speed) to minimize the agreement ratio, in which the number of
influence of repeated testing. agreements between the two observers was
divided by the total number of agreements plus
Response Measurement and Interobserver disagreements. The result was then converted
Agreement to a percentage. An agreement was defined as
The primary dependent variable was the the two observers scoring the same count for
percentage of card counts that were accurate. each participants response. Interobserver agree-
ment was 100% for all participants during all
baseline, rehearsal videos, and tests for
general- ization to a game of blackjack. Using
the same formula, the number of chips was
counted independently once or more every 16
trials, and agreement was 100%.
Procedure
Baseline. Participants completed the exper-
imental procedures individually with only the
experimenter in the room. After completion of
informed consent, each participant was read
the following blackjack instructions:
You are about to play blackjack. You will
start with $200 worth of chips. Before
each hand you will place a bet by placing
chips in the circle area in front of you. You
may bet as little or as much as you want
for each hand; however, you must bet at
least the $5 minimum. The goal in
blackjack is to have a hand that is closer to
21 than the dealer. An ace is valued at 1 or
11. Face cards and tens are valued at 10. All
number cards are valued at their face value.
The dealer will stand on
17 or higher and hit on 16 or lower. The
dealer must hit 17 if they have an ace,
known as a soft 17. Place bets as if
you were playing with real money.
After answering any questions, an experi-
menter (who served as the dealer) provided
participants with $5, $10, and $25 chips
totaling
$200 and dealt hands of blackjack at simulated
casino speed. To further simulate true casino
gambling, the rules used were the standard rules
that may be found in a casino: dealer must draw
on 16, stand on 17, hit on a soft 17 (two
cards total 17, but one of them is an ace
which can count as either a 1 or 11), and pay
a blackjack outcome (i.e., the player is dealt an
ace and a 10- value card) at 3:2. For example,
if a player bet
$10 and had a blackjack, the dealer would
pay
$15. After each bet was placed and the trial was
completed, the experimenter paid the player or
took the bet (depending on the outcome),
recorded the count and chips won or lost,
asked the participant to say the running count
aloud,
and recorded the players count. To avoid
any effects associated with fatigue, baseline
sessions lasted for approximately 30 hands
(three trial blocks). After all participants had
completed a session, the experimenters
examined the data for stable count accuracy
across trial blocks. When stability was
observed, a randomly selected participant
advanced to the training phase while all others
continued baseline sessions. In this way, each
participant played between 30 and 120
hands to measure baseline performance, and the
implementation of the intervention was stag-
gered using a concurrent multiple baseline
design across participants.
Behavioral skills training. After baseline meas-
ures were collected, each participant viewed an
instructional video on how to use the point-
count system. The video provided the following
instructions:
You are about to practice counting cards,
which may give you a strategic
advantage over the dealer while playing
blackjack. As the cards are dealt you will
be counting two types of cards: high cards
and low cards. Low cards consist of twos,
threes, fours, fives, and sixes. For each low
card dealt you will add one to the total.
High cards consist of all face cards (jacks,
queens, kings), tens, and aces. For each
high card dealt you will subtract one from
the point-count total. Sevens, eights, and
nines will not be counted or are given the
value of zero. The dealer will drop one card
at a time face up onto a pile. The count
will start at zero. When the count is high
(positive one or above) the player holds a
statistical advantage, indicating there is a
surplus of 10 cards remaining in the deck.
Thorp (1966) stated that a participant who
is able to count all the cards in the deck
accurately in 50 s or less is more than able to
count cards effectively in a casino setting. Thus,
to measure the accuracy of card counting, each
participant was shown a test video with cards
dealt at full speed (one card dealt
approximately every second, totaling no more
than 60 s) in which
the dealer dealt each card face up on a pile and
stopped 10 times to ask the participant the
count. Before the experiment each deck was
dealt, and the count was recorded for each card
in a computerized spreadsheet to facilitate
interob- server agreement. The order of the
cards in each deck remained consistent for five
separate decks recorded at varying speeds
throughout rehearsal and testing phases.
A concurrent multiple baseline design
across participants was used to evaluate the
effects of the intervention on chip total. After
baseline measures were collected, each
participant was exposed to the following
training phases: video instructions, video
rehearsal and tests at half speed (the hand
was dealt in 120 s, or one card every 2.3 s),
video rehearsal and tests at three- fourths
speed (the hand was dealt in 90 s, or one card
every 1.7 s), and video rehearsal and tests at full
speed (the hand was dealt in under 60 s;
approximately one card every second). Video
rehearsal consisted of the dealer dealing one
card at a time, face up, onto a pile and
included feedback via a statement of the count
after each card dealt. Participants were
permitted to repeat the video rehearsal tape as
many times as needed. Video testing consisted
of the dealer dealing one card at a time, face up,
onto a pile and asking the participant to state
the count 10 times through- out the deck.
Three different decks were recorded, and the
dealer stopped to ask the count at varying
times for each video and speed to prevent
testing effects. On some tests, participants
were asked to write their responses to facilitate
interobserver agreement, whereas on others, the
participant stated the count aloud while the
experimenter scored the response as correct or
incorrect. Written responses served as a
permanent product and were later compared to
the corresponding spreadsheet by two independ-
ent observers. Because each deck was prere-
corded, scored, and coded, the experimenter and
independent observers needed only to compare
each response to the answer scored in the
corresponding spreadsheet.
A mastery criterion was set at 100% correct.
If a participant responded correctly on all 10
opportunities, she moved to the next training
phase. If a participant responded incorrectly on
any of the 10 probes, she reviewed the rehearsal
video at the same speed at which she was tested.
For instance, if a participant responded in-
correctly during a video test at three-fourths
speed, she reviewed a rehearsal video at three-
fourths speed. During training, Participant 1
required eight test videos to achieve mastery at
half speed, five test videos at three-fourths
speed, and 36 test videos at full speed.
Participant 2 required six test videos at half
speed, 13 at three-fourths speed, and 46 at
full speed. Participant 3 required one test
video at each speed. Participant 4 required
three test videos at half speed, nine at three-
fourths speed, and 27 at full speed. After
completion of each portion of the testing
during the BST phase, the participant played a
generalization probe of one trial block (10
hands) in the simulated casino to determine
whether the full-speed training was required
for accurate counting in a gambling setting
or if instructions or a slower training speed
was sufficient. Participants were then given
feedback on the accuracy of their
performance before returning to complete the
next phase of training.
After each participant scored 100% on trials
in the testing videos, she was shown a video on
how to bet. The video provided the
following instructions:
Now that you have learned to count cards I
am going to give you the best possible
strategy when betting. As the cards are dealt,
the composition of the deck changes and
the advantage will shift between the player
and the casino. You will take advantage of
these shifts, betting more when you the
player hold the advantage and less when
the casino has the advantage. Anytime the
point count is positive, the player holds
the advantage. Anytime the point count
is negative, the casino holds the advantage.
When the point
 count is zero or negative it is beneficial to
bet the minimum, one chip. If the count is
positive your bet should equal the point-
count total. For instance, if the count is
plus two you will bet two chips; plus three,
three chips, and so on. You must also
take into account how much of the deck is
left when estimating the point-count
total. For in- stance, if there is one half of
the deck left you will multiply the point-
count total by two. If there is one fourth of
the deck left you will multiply the point-
count total by four. While we play you
will estimate when one half and three
fourths of the deck is dealt and adjust your
point count and your bets accordingly.
Remember to bet as many chips as the
point-count total.
After the participant watched the betting
video, the experimenter answered any ques-
tions by restating portions of the video script
or provided the opportunity to view the video
again.
Posttest. After the final training video, each
player returned to the blackjack table and
continued play according to the same proce-
dures as during baseline. Each player started
with the same amount of chips ($200) given
before baseline and the same rules
regarding game play. Total chips won or lost
and card- count accuracy were measured to
gauge the effectiveness of the BST procedure.
RESULTS
Figure 1 displays the card-count accuracy
during generalization probes (percentage correct
in blocks of 10) for each player. During
baseline, no player counted cards accurately.
After three trial blocks, the experimenter
checked for stable responding and introduced a
participant to the intervention phase.
Following video instruc- tions, no player
could accurately count cards while playing
blackjack; scores were 0%, 20%,
0%, and 0% for Participants 1 through 4,
respectively (M 5%).
As each player was exposed to video rehearsal
and testing, card-counting proficiency
increased. Training allowed for each
participant to achieve the 100% mastery
criterion at increasingly faster speeds to build
fluency. After video rehearsal and testing at half
speed, participants counted cards accurately for
0%, 20%, 100%, and 60% of the hands dealt
while playing blackjack, respectively (M
45%). Scores continued to improve as each
participant completed modeling and testing at
three-fourths speed. After participants com-
pleted tests at three-fourths speed, scores
improved to 30%, 50%, 100%, and 80%,
respectively (M 65%). Following video re-
hearsal and testing at full speed, scores improved
to 50%, 100%, 100%, and 80%, respectively
(M 82.5%). After all training and
general- ization probes were completed,
participants counted cards accurately on 98%,
96%, 95%, and 83%, respectively (M 93%)
of all posttest hands played.
Data on the number of chips won or lost
were collected to evaluate the financial out-
comes of the wagers. Figure 2 displays the
total chips won and lost for each player during
baseline and after the training during the
posttest. Participant 4, who broke even
during the first 120 hands of baseline, lost $5
in the
30 hands following the intervention
(M $0.17 lost per hand). All other partic-
ipants won a substantial amount following
BST. Participant 1, who lost $135 during
baseline, won $450 after training during the
120 hands following intervention (M $3.75
won per hand). Participant 2 lost $42 during
baseline and won $295 during the 90 hands
following training (M $3.28 won per hand).
Participant 3 lost $90 during baseline and won
$135 during the 60 hands following training
(M $2.25 won per hand). Together, all
four players lost a total of $267 before
training and won $875 after BST. The data
indicate that as the number of hands
increased in posttrain- ing, the amount of
chips won per hand increased.
 Figure 1. Count accuracy for each participant on the blackjack table.
DISCUSSION rehearsal, and testing can effectively teach a
card-counting strategy to recreational blackjack
The results of this study demonstrate that BST players. Performance in generalization probes
that consisted of video instructions, video gradually improved as each training phase was

Figure 2. The total number of chips held by each
player after each hand.
completed. The BST package produced an
improvement in card counting in the
simulated casino setting where skills were
never trained. During games of real blackjack,
players were able to keep the count and adjust
their bets to the point-count total. All
participants followed the betting strategy
outlined in the BST package. This strategy
gave the players an advantage over
the dealer, as evidenced by a substantial amount
of money won for Participants 1, 2, and 3. The
highest positive count observed during
blackjack play for all players was 28 (7
count with one fourth of the deck remaining
adjusted to equal a true count of 28). A 28
count provides the gambler with a 7.95%
advantage over the dealer. In a practical sense,
card counting appeared to be an effective means
to exploit an advantage while gambling.
Participants 1, 2, and 3, who counted cards
most accurately, won the most money. Had
Participant 4 continued to play and wager, it
could be argued that she would have won
money; however, this player was the least
accurate card counter, and it cannot be
assumed that card- counting proficiency
would have improved as play continued.
Participant 4 was also the last player
introduced to the intervention and therefore
played the fewest hands after training, which
may have influenced posttest performance.
Although the players chip totals frequently
benefitted from counting cards, the card-count-
ing system must still be used with caution. As
shown in Figure 2, the card-counting strategy
appears to keep the players number of chips
stable until a significant advantage is observed
and acted on, resulting in a large, rapid
increase in the number of chips. However, a
significant advantage occurs only on a
probabilistic basis. Even though the player has
an advantage over the casino when a high
positive count is observed, winning is not
guaranteed. Overall, when gambling in a
casino there is no sure way to win, but
counting cards and exploiting any observed
advantage appears to be a sound method of
reducing risk when placing a wager.
The current results support previous BST
literature. Miltenberger et al. (1999)
suggested the incorporation of in situ
assessments to make sure that the natural
setting will occasion targeted behavior. In the
present study, general- ization probes were
conducted systematically after completion of
each training phase. After completing a probe
block of 10 hands in a mock
casino, each participant was given feedback on
the accuracy of their responses before returning
to the next training phase. Each participant
was challenged to practice the newly acquired
skill in the typical gambling context, and
card- counting accuracy in the mock casino
improved as each successive training phase was
completed. As a result, it appears that the
participants now possess the repertoire
necessary to maximize their entertainment
experience in an actual casino environment
if they wish to play blackjack. A potential
limitation of the study is that only a single
deck of 52 cards was used. Many casinos also
offer blackjack that uses two to six decks.
When using the card-count strategy in such a
casino, a player would be required to divide
the point count by the number of remaining
decks in the shoe. For example, if the point
count is 10 with 5 remaining decks, the player
would divide 10 by 5 to arrive at the true count
of 2.
Counting cards is one of the few strategies
that a gambling patron may use to gain an
advantage over the house. Although gambling
with ones finances always possesses an
element of risk, responsible gambling can yield
an entertainment experience no different than
a movie, a symphony performance, shopping
for clothes, or collecting classic cars if limits
on time and money are set. It is when people
make irrational decisions based on limited or
incorrect informa- tion about the choices
with which they are presented that problems
may arise. Regardless of ones moral stance on
gambling, the activity is legal in 48 of the 50
states in the U.S. Casinos host millions of
patrons each year, and many states allow
blackjack play. As a result, research should be
conducted not only on helping pathological
gamblers overcome their addiction but also on
the rather silent majority of recreational
gamblers who could obtain a more enjoyable
experience by winning occasionally through
their exposure to simple behavioral
interventions. This general strategy is not
significantly different than, say, teaching a
recreational athlete a more effective golf swing
or tennis stroke.
REFERENCES
American Gaming Association. (2010). Card counting
before the Indiana Supreme Court. Retrieved from
http://www.
americangaming.org/newsroom/newsletters/gaming-le-
gal-update/card-counting-indiana-supreme-court
Anderson, P. (2012). Card counting in continuous time.
Journal of Applied Probability, 49, 184198.
Boyer, E., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., &
Fogel, V.
(2009). Video modeling by experts with video
feedback
to enhance gymnastics skills. Journal of
Applied
Behavior Analysis , 42, 855 860. doi:
10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-855
Gambino, B., & Lesieur, H. (2006). The South
Oaks
Gambling Screen (SOGS): A rebuttal to critics.
Journal
of Gambling Issues, 17, 1 16. doi:
10.4309/
jgi.2006.17.10
Golden, L. M. (2011). An analysis of the
disadvantage to
players of multiple decks in the game of twenty-
one.
Mathematical Scientist , 36,57 69.
J ohnson, B. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Egemo-Helm,
K.,
Jostad, C. M., Flessner, C., & Gatheridge, B.
(2005).
Evaluation of behavioral skills training for
teaching
abduction-prevention skills to young children.
Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis , 38 ,67 78. doi:
10.1901/
jaba.2005.26-04
Lesieur, H. R., & Blume, S. B. (1987). The South
Oaks
Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for
the
identification of pathological gamblers.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 11841188.
McKenzie, T. L., & Rushall, B. S. (1974). Effects
of self-
recording on attendance and performance in
a
competitive swimming training environment.
Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis , 7, 199206. doi:
10.1901/
jaba.1974.7-199
Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., Gatheridge, B.,
Johnson,
 B., Satterlund, M., & Egemo, K. (2004). jaba.1999.32-385
Evaluation of National Gambling Impact Study Commission
behavioral skills training to prevent gun play Report.
in (1999). Retrieved from
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/
513 516. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2004.37-513 ngisc/reports/finrpt.html
Miltenberger, R. G., Roberts, J. A., Ellingson, S., Smith, S. L., & Ward, P. (2006). Behavioral inter
Galensky, ventions to
T., Rapp, J. T., Long, E. S., & Lumley, V. A. improve performance in collegiate football. Journal
(1999). Training and generalization of sexual abuse of
prevention Applied Behavior Analysis, 39 , 385 391. doi:
skills for women with mental retardation. 10.1901/
Journal of jaba.2006.5-06
Applied Behavior Analysis, 32 , 385 388. doi:
10.1901/
S t. Lawrence, J. S., Jefferson, K. W., Alleyne, Thorp, E. O. (1966). Beat the dealer: A winning strateg
E., & y for
Brasfield, T. L. (1995). Comparison of the game of twenty-one. New York, NY: Random
education House.
versus behavioral skills training interventions in low-
ering sexual HIV-risk behavior of substance-dependent Received January 4, 2014
adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- Final acceptance February 12, 2015
ogy, 63, 154157. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.1.154 Action Editor, Jason Bourret
View publication stats