Experts only
- Thread starter tribute
- Start date
It doesn't give an advantage. By constantly reshuffling, you are essentially playing off a fresh shoe every round. This removes "hot" and "cold" shoes (always RC of 0 before each round (well not exactly)). This means that it will reduce variance, while keeping the same house edge. Thats why its better for the BS player.
Actually it gives a very VERY slight advantage, depending on the number of decks used. In a shoe game, if a lot of low cards come out, the cut card arrives with fewer hands played. And the hands that are played are played at a disadvantage because they consist of more low cards. Naturally the effect in a multi deck game is extremely small, but it is still there. Lets say you're playing SD, with a cut card placed 8 cards deep for the sake of my example. You get a 5 card 20, and the dealer gets a 5 card 21. You'd like to play another hand and get some of those big cards, but you can't, since it's shuffle time.
CSMs are BAD FOR EVERYONE!
CSMs = more hands per hour, for the basic strategy player that means more $ lost per hour! This does not necessarily translate into more casino profits!
They are also bad because the casinos are "trying" to put in games where no one has any chance of winning!
Even a regular shoe game a civilian could play a few hands at the right time and have a positive expectation situation.
The casinos have to actually let some people win sometime if they want to stay in business!
This is much harder against CSMs.
Probably CSMs are bad for casinos, you don't see much large action against them. I believe they are leased so the return on investment may not be very high. There are many smart civilians who refuse to play against a black box! There are casinos that have pulled their CSMs. A good idea!
CSMs = more hands per hour, for the basic strategy player that means more $ lost per hour! This does not necessarily translate into more casino profits!
They are also bad because the casinos are "trying" to put in games where no one has any chance of winning!
Even a regular shoe game a civilian could play a few hands at the right time and have a positive expectation situation.
The casinos have to actually let some people win sometime if they want to stay in business!
This is much harder against CSMs.
Probably CSMs are bad for casinos, you don't see much large action against them. I believe they are leased so the return on investment may not be very high. There are many smart civilians who refuse to play against a black box! There are casinos that have pulled their CSMs. A good idea!
YES, CSM better for BS players
Yes, CSMs are better for BS players because they shuffle the cards after every hand, essentially killing the count. Basic strategy gives all of the right decisions for a zero count. As the deck becomes unbalanced because an excess of high or low cards come out it causes BS to make improper plays. Look at a couple examples.
Let's say you are dealt a hand of 10 vs. a dealer up card of 9. BS says to double down. However, if a bunch big cards have already come out and the count is negative, you make the wrong play if you double down. Counter strategy says to only DD at of -1 or higher.
12 is a tricky hand too. You stand on 12 vs dealer 4, 5 or 6. However, if the count dips you should hit. On the converse side BS says to hit 12 against dealer 2 or 3. However, if the count rises you should stand. There are many other plays that change as the count swings while playing BJ. In fact a counter derives about 25% of his / her advantage by varying his/ her play with the count.
So when the house uses a CSM the count stays at 0. Therefore, BS yields the correct play on all hands. You DD, hit, stand and split correctly. The funny part is that many casinos offer poor penetration because they are afraid of card counters. Poor penetration hurts card counters but help BS players because you lower the number of times that the true count varies greatly.
However, BS players outnumber card counters by a wide margin. It would be interesting to know if some casinos are actually hurting themselves by shutting out card counters, while increasing the win rate for BS players.
Jon
Yes, CSMs are better for BS players because they shuffle the cards after every hand, essentially killing the count. Basic strategy gives all of the right decisions for a zero count. As the deck becomes unbalanced because an excess of high or low cards come out it causes BS to make improper plays. Look at a couple examples.
Let's say you are dealt a hand of 10 vs. a dealer up card of 9. BS says to double down. However, if a bunch big cards have already come out and the count is negative, you make the wrong play if you double down. Counter strategy says to only DD at of -1 or higher.
12 is a tricky hand too. You stand on 12 vs dealer 4, 5 or 6. However, if the count dips you should hit. On the converse side BS says to hit 12 against dealer 2 or 3. However, if the count rises you should stand. There are many other plays that change as the count swings while playing BJ. In fact a counter derives about 25% of his / her advantage by varying his/ her play with the count.
So when the house uses a CSM the count stays at 0. Therefore, BS yields the correct play on all hands. You DD, hit, stand and split correctly. The funny part is that many casinos offer poor penetration because they are afraid of card counters. Poor penetration hurts card counters but help BS players because you lower the number of times that the true count varies greatly.
However, BS players outnumber card counters by a wide margin. It would be interesting to know if some casinos are actually hurting themselves by shutting out card counters, while increasing the win rate for BS players.
Jon
Whatever the very small amount the house edge is reduced by the use of a CSM is more than made up by the house getting increased hands per hour.
Where casinos have lost money on CSM's is in the cost of having them. Have you noticed a CSM green chip table in Vegas unless it is New Years or a fight weekend?
Did you know that there are a total of Zero CSM's in high limit areas in Vegas?
CSM's are relegated to the lowest of low level tables because people who bet real money refuse to play on these tables. The CSM's job has become merely to eek out a few extra bucks from red chip players.
ihate17
as stated above, its a more steady loss as well. large fluctuations (including the winning ones that draw ploppies to the tables as Avenger rightly points out) will drop with a CSM. these are the fluctuations that keep ploppies interested in the game with an illusion that the game can be beaten. any additional gain due to the cut-card effect is lost to playing more hands per hour.
Wrong
If all bs players played perfectly on a CSM it would be profitable to the casino because of the increased number of hands.
All of this does not matter in any casino location where the customer has a choice. Given a choice the customer refuses to play on the CSM and that is the bottom line.
Furthermore, who ever said that there are many more BS players than cardcounters was probably only partially correct at best. In my years of playing I have ran into perhaps more counters than people who played basic strategy PERFECTLY. I see people with BS cards all the time but when that card tells them to split their 8,8 vs 10 or double that A,7 vs 3, or split those 9's vs a 9, guess what? They ignore the card over and over again. They take even money, they do not hit 12 vs 3 ever and it goes on and on.
It all makes me wonder that perhaps the rare guy who takes the time to memorize BS and then actually use it perfectly, does he try counting? I would think that eventually he would give it a shot.
As far as the CSM goes. My opinion is that it is an utter failure for casinos in areas where there is competition without CSM's. The result is that they get a little extra rent on that red chip table seat and that is it.
ihate17
If all bs players played perfectly on a CSM it would be profitable to the casino because of the increased number of hands.
All of this does not matter in any casino location where the customer has a choice. Given a choice the customer refuses to play on the CSM and that is the bottom line.
Furthermore, who ever said that there are many more BS players than cardcounters was probably only partially correct at best. In my years of playing I have ran into perhaps more counters than people who played basic strategy PERFECTLY. I see people with BS cards all the time but when that card tells them to split their 8,8 vs 10 or double that A,7 vs 3, or split those 9's vs a 9, guess what? They ignore the card over and over again. They take even money, they do not hit 12 vs 3 ever and it goes on and on.
It all makes me wonder that perhaps the rare guy who takes the time to memorize BS and then actually use it perfectly, does he try counting? I would think that eventually he would give it a shot.
As far as the CSM goes. My opinion is that it is an utter failure for casinos in areas where there is competition without CSM's. The result is that they get a little extra rent on that red chip table seat and that is it.
ihate17
Well now, it appears the "experts" have differing opinions! I should rephrase my original question:
Assuming EVERYTHING being equal (number of decks, rules, AND same number of hands dealt per hour, does a basic strategy player gain ANY mathematical positive change in EV playing on a CSM as opposed to a shoe game?
Assuming EVERYTHING being equal (number of decks, rules, AND same number of hands dealt per hour, does a basic strategy player gain ANY mathematical positive change in EV playing on a CSM as opposed to a shoe game?
They dont disagree. They are talking about 2 aspects of the CSM. While there will be a slight advantage gained from the CSM, the advantage is offset by the increased hands per hour. Notice that this means that in order for the shoe game to have the same hands/hour as the CSM, the dealer for the shoe must be dealing MUCH faster than the dealer for the CSM because he has to make up time lost during the shuffle. So to answer your question:
IF everything is equal, there is an positive change in EV if playing on a CSM. However, know that this is highly unlikely and that the gain in EV is offset by increased hands/hour.
IF everything is equal, there is an positive change in EV if playing on a CSM. However, know that this is highly unlikely and that the gain in EV is offset by increased hands/hour.
Assuming equality of variables
To directly answer your question, yes if everything is equal the bs player gains slightly but is still playing a negative expectation game. The amount gained is so small that I believe if a hand or two extra are dealt per hour, that reduction in house when multiplied by the amount of money bet in that hour, is now gone.
The problem from all points of view are the variables are never equal. The casino gets more hands per hour, which means they take all (including the bs player) the players money faster, but much less money plays on a CSM table and it results in a total of less profit for the casino.
I do not want to encourage any player to play a CSM but instead of comparing a CSM game to a hand shuffled game, instead compare it to an ASM game.
Here the number of hands played per hour are basically the same, within a hand or two per hour.
When you take this and put it into the reality of many casinos you actually can get more hands per hour out of a ASM because CSM tables are often the lowest bet level and populated by the least experienced players. These players tend to slow down the game. So since a BS player is playing a losing game and is better off playing less hands per hour, he is ever so slightly better off playing on this very slow CSM table if his other option is playing on a higher bet level, ASM table with quick dealers and players.
Of course the only way to make that decision properly is to watch the dealer and players on both tables.
Of course would there be another table, with the same variables but it is hand shuffled, then he would be best off there because there would even be fewer hands.
Assume nothing. Size up each game/table individually.
ihate17
To directly answer your question, yes if everything is equal the bs player gains slightly but is still playing a negative expectation game. The amount gained is so small that I believe if a hand or two extra are dealt per hour, that reduction in house when multiplied by the amount of money bet in that hour, is now gone.
The problem from all points of view are the variables are never equal. The casino gets more hands per hour, which means they take all (including the bs player) the players money faster, but much less money plays on a CSM table and it results in a total of less profit for the casino.
I do not want to encourage any player to play a CSM but instead of comparing a CSM game to a hand shuffled game, instead compare it to an ASM game.
Here the number of hands played per hour are basically the same, within a hand or two per hour.
When you take this and put it into the reality of many casinos you actually can get more hands per hour out of a ASM because CSM tables are often the lowest bet level and populated by the least experienced players. These players tend to slow down the game. So since a BS player is playing a losing game and is better off playing less hands per hour, he is ever so slightly better off playing on this very slow CSM table if his other option is playing on a higher bet level, ASM table with quick dealers and players.
Of course the only way to make that decision properly is to watch the dealer and players on both tables.
Of course would there be another table, with the same variables but it is hand shuffled, then he would be best off there because there would even be fewer hands.
Assume nothing. Size up each game/table individually.
ihate17
Even without a CSM machine if, say, a BS player is perchance playing a 1D game with a cut-card, would you say he would be siginicantly better off by only playing a fixed number of rounds per shoe rather than playing to the cut-card? In other words, always refuse to play that last round?
I had the feeling the cut-card effect can be quite significant in a SD game and that the BS player could be playing to a significantly higher HA, perhaps playing a game up to 30% worse than if he did not play to cut-card?
Likewise, although less significantly, without a CSM, a BS player could be up to maybe 7% better off never playing the cut card round?
So, if identical games are equally available, a CSM and a cut-card game, maybe now it's best of both worlds - choose the cut-card game and enjoy the lower HA and even fewer hands per hour by never playing to the cut card lol.
Guess it all begs the question of why, whenever anyone cites its a 0.43% HA game, why they don't just add a little to that if they actually are referring to a cut-card game.
I had the feeling the cut-card effect can be quite significant in a SD game and that the BS player could be playing to a significantly higher HA, perhaps playing a game up to 30% worse than if he did not play to cut-card?
Likewise, although less significantly, without a CSM, a BS player could be up to maybe 7% better off never playing the cut card round?
So, if identical games are equally available, a CSM and a cut-card game, maybe now it's best of both worlds - choose the cut-card game and enjoy the lower HA and even fewer hands per hour by never playing to the cut card lol.
Guess it all begs the question of why, whenever anyone cites its a 0.43% HA game, why they don't just add a little to that if they actually are referring to a cut-card game.