The effect of CSMs for BS players?

[newb99]

I've been trying to gather my thoughts to explain to others why even for those players who play simple BS, and don't apply any AP techniques, CSMs should be avoided like the plague. I've put them down in the attachment (about 2000 words). I'm sorry but I'm afraid I don't agree that for a recreational BS player who is prepared to lose some money, there is no difference between playing a shoe game and one serviced by a CSM.

If anyone disagrees with my hypothesis on the loss of player advantageous shoe compositions, or if any of the numbers look wrong, please shout.

And apologies to anyone who thinks it state's the obvious - it's not written
for experienced APs who have done the sums.

Thanks.

[jay28]

Hi Newb,

I'm curious to what you're planning to do with this essay, is it for a college course or something similar, or are you going to distribute this information somehow?

[tedloc]

Here are my thoughts. Fred Renzy says that after the shuffle, the odds favor the house 101/100. This is as close to an even bet as a NON CARD COUNTER, can expect to get. The reason is: Even though the deck may get more favorable, the NON CARD COUNTER, will not be aware of the change.
It is my feeling that a person playing basic strategy should only raise his bet on a new shuffle, as he has a 'coin flip' chance of winning. It makes no sense for him to raise his bet any other time, as he will be unaware of the count.
Now it seems to me that if Renzy is correct (Odds 101/100) and you are a NON CARD COUNTER, you should only play on a CSM. One thing to remember is that a CSM deals more hands per hour, so play slow, take some breaks and play on a FULL table, to limit the hands.

[shadroch]

CSMs give you the chance to play more hands per hour. If the house has the edge on every hand, this is a bad thing. I'd guess that frequent trips to the restrooms would negate that. Limit yourself to 45-50 hands an hour and you'll be okay. Play every hand for hours on end and you'll be ground to death.

[tribute]

I also brought up this subject recently and thought it was covered fairly well by various posters. See "Advanced Strategies", "Experts Only" thread.

I have had sessions before where, after getting beat up really bad on 6D shoes and 2D pitch games, moved over to play on a CSM, and got some money back. I guess that was just a strange day in the life of a recreational BJ player.

[Guynoire]

I've wondered the effects of penetration on basic strategy myself. Let's say you're playing a 6 deck shoe game with deep penetration. With 2 decks remaining are you effectively playing on average a 2 deck version of the same game? If so should the basic strategy player switch to the 2 deck strategy and receive a lower house edge?

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by newb99

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I don't agree that for a recreational BS player who is prepared to lose some money, there is no difference between playing a shoe game and one serviced by a CSM.

Nice essay Newb - thanks for sharing it.

I'm just going to assume a CSM that actually does reshuffle after every round.

Anyway, a flat-betting BS player will enjoy a reduced HA than if he plays a shoe with a cut-card.

Also, should he be unlucky enough to perhaps experience a back-counter while playing that shoe, his HA goes up again, maybe up to 10% worse.

If there happen to be card-eating counters, spreading in good counts, at his table, he also gets royally screwed, perhaps playing to HA 25% worse than otherwise.

Comp-dependent BS departures would be more reliable and have less variance with a CSM. Maybe anyway? lol.

The BS player would experience less swings of variance never having to play the higher variances in -counts or the lower variances in +counts or the crazy stuff that can happen in extreme counts.

If it's a full CSM table and your choice is a 5 person shoe game, you may still be better off despite more hands per hour.

If you were going to play a shoe for six hours anyway, leave an hour later or sooner lol.

Take 10 seconds to make your play decision instead of none.

Table limits could be lower.

If voodooing it, what with the more hands per hour you will achieve your "session" goal sooner and with less variance.

The dealer will be tired and irritable because he never gets a shuffling break and makes more mistakes. That's my CSM AP move lmao.

[Kasi]

Originally Posted by Guynoire

I've wondered the effects of penetration on basic strategy myself. Let's say you're playing a 6 deck shoe game with deep penetration. With 2 decks remaining are you effectively playing on average a 2 deck version of the same game? If so should the basic strategy player switch to the 2 deck strategy and receive a lower house edge?

I don't think a BS player should switch to a 2D BS at that point. I mean how often would those 104 cards be the same as only decks?

I'd guess you might be playing at a HA of a 2D game? Like a TC of 0 is worth more advantage then than it was at the top of the shoe?

Just guessing lol.

[sagefr0g]

Originally Posted by Guynoire

I've wondered the effects of penetration on basic strategy myself. Let's say you're playing a 6 deck shoe game with deep penetration. With 2 decks remaining are you effectively playing on average a 2 deck version of the same game? If so should the basic strategy player switch to the 2 deck strategy and receive a lower house edge?

i dunno, your questions bring to mind the cut card effect.
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm

[newb99]

Originally Posted by Kasi

I'm just going to assume a CSM that actually does reshuffle after every round.

The jury's out on that one. I've only played a CSM dealt game for a very short time, but it did seem to me that there was a delay in the cards going back in and the mechanics inside bursting into life and reshuffling them. Perhaps we should ask those nice people at Shufflemaster Inc for guidance on this matter ? We could do an equivalent of a class action and all sign the request with our respective forum handles?

Originally Posted by Kasi

Anyway, a flat-betting BS player will enjoy a reduced HA than if he plays a shoe with a cut-card.

Hmmm . . . that's really the point of my hypothosis. Over the long term , or over an infinite number of decks, you are of course correct and the floating HE will average out to be marginally advantageous for the player, due to no cards being cut out of play. But in the short term, that won't necessarily be the case. You could end up playing a shoe with a 2% player advantage and not even know it - purely due to the way the cards have ended up after a shuffle. With a weak shuffle, and the cut card going back into the right place, it could be possible to play several like that on the trot. Of course, things can, and at some stage will, work the other way.

I disagree with the poster above - I think BS players should avoid CSMs where they have a choice (as there'll be no possibility of a swing in their favour of any significance at anytime) if they have any expectation of winning. If not, it doesn't matter - it then becomes a simple matter of paid for entertainment. But I think most people play BJ with some degree of hope that it'll be their night.

Believe it or not, this all started with someone asking me " . . . so what's the difference then?"

:-)