Cutting out a low slug...

While playing recently I was able to take note of a large slug of low cards and cut them behind the cut card after the shuffle. My question is this......If I know the shoe will be more positive than normal, how much can I increase my bet and still keep the same RoR?

Would it be dependent on the count value of the slug?

Thanks,

Homeschool

To be accurate you will need to know the slug count (running count) of the poor slug that was cut out of play, this method is l called positive NRS. Anyway this case is the simplest case of the NRS equation, your TC is given by

TC= (SC+RC)/(Effective Shoe size-#number of cards dealt)

where SC is the count of the slug you cut out of play, RC is the running count,
I think Sonny wrote a more detailed explanation about the topic somewhere, i will let you search for it.

points out of play

it would depend on the count of the slug. do you know the count of the slug? are you sure about it? are you really sure? do you really know exactly what the dealer grabbed?

let's say you are sure, and that you saw 26 cards with a count of +10, and that those 26 cards got mixed with some other **** during the shuffle but that you still knew exactly where all 26 of them were -- eg, that they were all definitely included in what is now a 52-card packet comprised of your original slug and some unknown stuff -- and that your eye is good and your hand-eye coordination good and you definitely put all 26 of those cards at the back of the shoe.

if all of the above are true, you can begin the new shoe with a running count of +10 and add a half deck to whatever you see in the discard tray. in other words, you know that 10 bad cards are out of play, and you have seen the equivalent of 26 cards already.

if you're unsure of your slug, unsure of its real count or where all of it really ended up, you can do yourself a lot of harm through this sort of thing. so be cautious. when in doubt don't **** around.

also: as you get near the end of the shoe make damn sure you don't bet into the one-deck packet comprised of the slug and unknowns. that is a poisonous error.

if the information is less precise -- like you maybe think a good number of bad cards were in this particular slug, but you don't know exactly how many -- i wouldn't do anything. haphazard guesstimates in the world of tracking can get you broke in a hurry. the most cautious approach would be to cut those cards to the front, rather than cutting them out of play, and try building a count for yourself.

Sorry but this not true, you do begin with a running count, but the adding of half a deck thing is not true.

truth!

please explain the difference between adding a half deck in the example i gave and the (identical, if i understand the author correctly) formula here:

While I understand the incorrect assumption of cutting low cards out could have significant negative results and would increase RoR due to overbetting, let me give you a little more info on how things played out that led up to this question.

First off let me say that I am not a shuffle tracker and don't pretend to be. While I have a pretty good eye and can estimate deck sizes fairly well I simply don't have the time to put in to become good at STing and don't want to try to do it half-assed. That would be potentially VERY expensive.

However, I was playing a 6d shoe with pen at about 4.5/6. I'm using Red-7 and i'm not sure how that correlates with HiLo or other counts requiring a conversion. In about the first 3/4 or a deck the count moves from -12 to -3, which means that slug of cards would have a +9 value (correct?). At 75% pen the approximate 3/4 deck shuffled with another 3/4 deck gives me roughly the same amount of cards that will be placed behind the cut card. I was able to get my hands on the cut card and the "slug" in question ended up behind the cut card. This proceeded to produce VERY good results for the portion of the shoe that was played out. I can see why STers do well.

I was simply curious as to whether or not there was a rule of thumb. Such as spreading to 2 hands allows you to bet 73% of your 1 hand bet without increasing RoR. I was actually kinda proud of myself for even thinking to keep track of the low cards and just wanted to see if I could have adjusted my bet accordingly.:sad:


I am assuming the "playzone" is the cards before the cut card?

So using R7 if I were to cut a slug of cards with a +6 value (assuming I estimate right of course) out of play, I could begin my count at -6 instead of -12?

Because you will be off by half a deck. Let us take a look at your example.

In a 4 deck shoe game, we track a slug of 26 cards with a RC of 10 that got mixed to a 26 cards of an unknown count, wisdom tells us to cut that 1 deck out of play. The playzone in this case is the 3 decks that has a higher density(actually a little less you also leave a buffer zone so that you dont cross to the non-playzone during a round).
But it aslo happens in this case that the effective shoe size is 3 decks, so the divisor (denominator) in the TC equation is equal to 3 minus played cards.

In the example you give you are saying to add 26 cards (0.5 deck) to the used cards, but you are also assuming that your divisor starts at 4 decks (full shoe size), so your divisor will always be off by 0.5 decks.

Yes the playzone is the cards before the cut card. I havent looked at NRS for unbalanced counts in a while so i will have to get back to you on this one.

Another option, cut them up to the front of the shoe and watch them come out with little or no money on the table. You know what to do after that.

yo

wisdom does tell us to cut that 1 deck out of play. i agree.

i agree that we only wish to play the 3 decks (exactly 3 decks if possible or minus a buffer if necessary; a buffer is a fine idea).

i disagree about your other uses of this playzone thingy.

we're card counters, right? to calculate true count we start with a running count. then what do we do?

we divide that running count by the cards we haven't seen. usually this means by the number of remaining decks. right? why do we do this?

we do it because we calculate our bets based on the average concentration of good cards among the remaining decks.

in the 4-deck example, with a 26-card slug mixed with 26 unknown cards and then cut out of play, at the start of the shoe there are 26 cards we've seen -- that slug -- and 3.5 decks we have not seen.

what is the true count? the true count is the running count divided by the number of unseen decks. if the slug counts as +10, the true count at the beginning of the shoe equals 10 divided by 3.5.

it does not equal +10 divided by the size of your "playzone." no concept like that is applicable here. it doesn't make sense. it's as if you were counting normally without tracking and decided to use as a divisor for true-count conversion only those unseen decks that are in front of the cut card. for true count purposes in ordinary counting and in positive-slug removal alike, our divisor equals unseen cards -- including those unseen cards that are either in back of the cut card or a part of the packet our 26-card slug got mixed into. our divisor does not equal unseen-cards-that-we-are-going-to-get-to-bet. in other words, it doesn't equal playzone.

i wonder if you've taken a concept from the considerably more difficult form of tracking where you're only playing a negative slug that you cut to the front. that is my suspicion. or maybe i'm drunk. cheers in any case.
:joker:

red 7

it's awesome that you saw this & were thinking about it. red 7 requires no true count conversion, right? that simplifies matters. if you're sure about what you saw & where everything went, just start with a running +9 in this case. you can bet as you normally would -- again, if you're sure.

one thing to be on the alert for: if you see the first 3/4 deck with a +9, and you are sure about this, and you are excited because you think you may be able to use it somehow, be aware that it's easy to convince yourself that the dealer has grabbed exactly the cards you want her to grab. if, immediately after your slug, there are suddenly some negative cards, and your dealer happens to grab a little more than 3/4 deck, you're not dealing with the situation you thought you were dealing with. right? it's really easy to get blinded by our desires in a casino & see things that aren't quite happening as we'd like. but you sound like a cautious guy.

Correct. However the running count starts at -2 for each deck, so -12 for 6d. If I'm understanding right I could start, with a value of +9 for slug cut out, (-12+9) at -3. Or I might value the slug at a little less just to be safe.

Thanks guys for the replies.

Homeschool

I am sorry but you seem to have no knowledge of the NRS treatment for shuffle tracking. Whenever you are in the playzone your divisor is the effective shoe size, which is equal to the theoretical playzone in the case when a poor slug is cut out of play.

Bad idea. I would rather be able to play all hands while still betting zero on that low slug.

i sincerely do not know what you are talking about. which must mean you're right. in any case you use bold font so you win.

thanks,
josh

That would be great, if you knew with certainty it was a low slug. Under normal circumstances you don't know what cards were mixed in with it, and this adds an extra level of variance that needs to be accounted for in your bets. I find it more efficient to use cutting to manufacture good counts, rather than as a substitute for count information. At least, that's the way it is with the shuffles I have regular access to.

That's why you use the NRS formula - as it accurately estimates your average advantage given all possible packet compositions. But ho hum we've discussed all of this before.
What a total ****ing tool you are!
RJT.

I havn't read every word of this exchange, so apologies if I'm repeating what someone else has already said. But going back to the original question, I reckon if you've made an assumption that a chunk of low cards have been cut out of play, you shouldn't deviate from your normal betting ramp but allow for it with an adjusted running count - ie, if you're reasonably sure that there are a dozen or so low cards behind the cut-card, allow a reasonable margin of error and, say, start your running count at +6 or +8, and bet in line with this? In this way you don't have to worry about making errors in adjustments to betting levels.

There's no doubt it'd be possible to calculate the impact of removing 8 low cards from the playable bit, and hence the %age advantage that is derived, but would anyone want to worry about doing this at the table?

I find it fairly shocking that the author of a book discussing his own extensive exploits with AP and claims to have been involved with one of the many MIT factions (some of whome supposedly were amongst the groups that developed the formula) doesn't know anything about the NRS forumula! If you've looked into shuffle tracking at all online you're bound to have come accross discussion of it. I genuinely don't like suggesting what i am 2 posts in a row with a new poster, but that's quite the admission you've just made Josh.
I hope you are who you claim and in that vein i'm going to post a link on this topic just now;

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/playing/statman.htm (Archive copy)

It's not the post i was looking for but it's still good. Look over at the card counter's cafe for posts by alienated, they're really good.

RJT.

thx rjt

i was responding to the guy's tone and ending dialog with him because of it, rather than speaking unironically.

-josh