royal match video blackjack

sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
sometimes these bj machines are set up purely as csm's shuffling six decks after every round played and sometimes they are set up to shuffle six decks after two thirds of the pack have been dealt, but you can't tell when the pack is shuffled.

so the questions are:

given equal rules but the different shuffling scenario's........ do the two scenario's provide the same house edge?:confused:

is each scenario essentially a csm?

would the shuffle after two thirds of the pack have been dealt scenario just have more variance sort of thing compared to the pure csm game?
 

Attachments

L

London Colin

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
The cut-card effect will apply to the two-thirds shuffle.

The difference in house edge between the two games should be the same as would be the case in the real-world comparison of shoe vs CSM.
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
HI SAGE, HEs are equal. I 'm going to say something here that will probably be controversial.
If I had to choose, I would choose the one that plays the 2/3 shoe before shuffle. Even though you can't tell when it shuffles. There will be times when the deck is advantageous as opposed to shuffling every hand. Here is the controversial part.. I would count it also... even though you don't know exactly when it shuffles... you can tell when the RC is absurdly +/-. Then you can reset your count and it's like you walked into the middle of a shoe and started counting. While not accurate... it gives you a feel for the composition.

Now if you can figure out a way to get the machine to restart... or see them boot it up... then you can know when it shuffles. Then I would still try to figure out away to know when it shuffles. IF you figure that one out.. please let me know. :)

I have also heard there are ways to tell when it shuffles... but I don't know if its a fact.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
daddybo said:
HI SAGE, HEs are equal. I 'm going to say something here that will probably be controversial.
If I had to choose, I would choose the one that plays the 2/3 shoe before shuffle. Even though you can't tell when it shuffles. There will be times when the deck is advantageous as opposed to shuffling every hand. Here is the controversial part.. I would count it also... even though you don't know exactly when it shuffles... you can tell when the RC is absurdly +/-. Then you can reset your count and it's like you walked into the middle of a shoe and started counting. While not accurate... it gives you a feel for the composition.

Now if you can figure out a way to get the machine to restart... or see them boot it up... then you can know when it shuffles. Then I would still try to figure out away to know when it shuffles. IF you figure that one out.. please let me know. :)

I have also heard there are ways to tell when it shuffles... but I don't know if its a fact.
Click to expand...
so would you actually bet up on such a nebulous count or just maybe strategy deviation?
it would be taking a gamble sort of thing, right?

edit: errhh maybe just not play when you think it's a count way down in the dumps sort of thing, play when you think it's positive, sort of thing?

errhh the fluctuation would be greater on the 2/3 shuffle point machine, no?
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
Lol..Sage.. I wouldn't play it.. Unless I could figure out a way to beat it. I will say I've played some BJ electronic games with out knowing the shuffle point and I used the method I described and it **seemed** to work. But, that's only empirical evidence and I wasn't playing for real money. You would be gambling.

Why would you want to play it? For comps?
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
daddybo said:
Lol..Sage.. I wouldn't play it.. Unless I could figure out a way to beat it. I will say I've played some BJ electronic games with out knowing the shuffle point and I used the method I described and it **seemed** to work. But, that's only empirical evidence and I wasn't playing for real money. You would be gambling.
Click to expand...
right, i was just wondering if you'd bet up. take a fudge factor calculated gamble ever on it, sort of thing. i've tried that with mixed results.
Why would you want to play it? For comps?
Click to expand...
yes, that sort of stuff.
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
sagefr0g said:
right, i was just wondering if you'd bet up. take a fudge factor calculated gamble ever on it, sort of thing. i've tried that with mixed results.

yes, that sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
Well If you insist on playing it. Yeah, I'd use the running count as a guide to bet size and playing decisions, I've actually done that, and it seemed to work fine... but I have no way of knowing how much of it was luck. My little experiment was only about 10,000 hands.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
daddybo said:
Well If you insist on playing it. Yeah, I'd use the running count as a guide to bet size and playing decisions, I've actually done that, and it seemed to work fine... but I have no way of knowing how much of it was luck. My little experiment was only about 10,000 hands.
Click to expand...
lamo, only if it ends up plus ev, my friend, you know that :) .....

so like if in the end it is plus ev, all things considered, (remember who i've been hanging with lately :cool: ), then a little betting up with the fudge factor wouldn't really matter, if say the up bet was your unit bet and the lower bet was less than the unit, long as your unit bet, or any bet for that matter had a plus ev yield. so then if your little experiment had any validity, theoretically it could work out even more plus ev.

just thinking out loud Dad, thank you for the ear.
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#9
#9
I seriously doubt it is really positive EV. :laugh: I will say statistically my win/loss/push ratios were spot on with BS percentages. Which only means in that 10,000 hands I didn't do any worse or better than if I had been playing with BS.

I hope you are not playing the Royal Match sidebet. (BTW what's the pay table on the Royal Match?)
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
daddybo said:
I seriously doubt it is really positive EV. :laugh: I will say statistically my win/loss/push ratios were spot on with BS percentages. Which only means in that 10,000 hands I didn't do any worse or better than if I had been playing with BS.
Click to expand...
ahh ok, well that would still be ok, long as the other factors made for plus ev.

even flat betting, still you could wong in and out on the thing, sort of thing.
and of course that may or may not help, because of the uncertainty.

again thanks for the ear. :)
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
#11
#11
daddybo said:
I seriously doubt it is really positive EV. :laugh: I will say statistically my win/loss/push ratios were spot on with BS percentages. Which only means in that 10,000 hands I didn't do any worse or better than if I had been playing with BS.

I hope you are not playing the Royal Match sidebet. (BTW what's the pay table on the Royal Match?)
Click to expand...
It's the bad paytable.

There is an approach to beating these, but it's really not worth it. What you would want to do is use a balanced, running count only system, and move the count a percentage of the way back to zero after every round, never resetting it as you would with a shuffle. What you'll get is a system which picks up medium-term fluctuations in count which will usually correlate to a count in the actual shoe, and give you some kind of an advantage.

Being I have no handy way to simulate this I wouldn't guess at what the damping coefficient would be, nor the EV of this method.
 
daddybo

daddybo

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
Automatic Monkey said:
It's the bad paytable.

There is an approach to beating these, but it's really not worth it. What you would want to do is use a balanced, running count only system, and move the count a percentage of the way back to zero after every round, never resetting it as you would with a shuffle. What you'll get is a system which picks up medium-term fluctuations in count which will usually correlate to a count in the actual shoe, and give you some kind of an advantage.

Being I have no handy way to simulate this I wouldn't guess at what the damping coefficient would be, nor the EV of this method.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much how I approached it. Acting on the rate of fluctuations in the RC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top