So I headed back to AC the other day hoping to put my counting to the test again. I played at all different casinos, but the one that seems to be taking all of my money is the god damn Claridge...ONLY IN POSITIVE COUNTS. I'm beginning to think they rigged their ASM's. The past 2 days I dropped about a grand and I just have a feeling that something is up. It could just be in my head because I am upset about dropping the doe, but something is fishy. It's like the count sky rockets to about a +9 and I get my max bets out there (100) and the results just aren't there. I know I'm probably just experiencing shitty fluctuation, but it seems like all the high cards are stashed behind the cut card. Is it possible that they could do something like this? Maybe this should have been posted in the voodoo...
Claridge BJ
- Thread starter rollem411
- Start date
That was a TC, but the penetration at times wasn't all that great...between 70 and 75%...definetly playable because I was wonging in and out.
Well in the past two days I played in 2 shoes where the TC rose to above +9 and I must have played at least 15 hands of my 2 highest bets.
The dealer would show a 4 and pull another 4 or 5 as his hole card and then hit a 10 to beat my stiff hand...sometimes I would even hold a decent hand and get beat. This happened many times but also with a 6 up card as well and it just seemed like it wasn't a case of bad luck. It wasn't even like I was getting 18 and getting bad beats with a dealer 20 or so. I just had the feeling those ASM's weren't legit.
I'm just wondering if anyone plays there as well and has success? If so I know it's just a sh*t week for me.
In the frustrating loss scenario you describe (you get a stiff, dealer gets two low cards and a high card), then the running count only increased by 1 in that hand. And if there's 2 or 3 decks left in the shoe, then that's still a very likely possibility, regardless of the true count.
And don't forget about other people at the table (the dealer or other players), they may have been collecting the high cards from the shoe, as opposed to you. Which is also frustrating.
And don't forget about other people at the table (the dealer or other players), they may have been collecting the high cards from the shoe, as opposed to you. Which is also frustrating.
I like it there because it has $10 min. all the time and it's a lot quieter than other casinos and easier to get a heads up game, maybe one other person at the table.
I even switched to two hands after a few of my losses in high counts to get more of the high cards, but it didn't seem to have a great effect.
For a few weeks I was practicing and keeping track of my wins vs losses and one session I happen to drop about a grand so maybe my luck will change tomorrow.
I even switched to two hands after a few of my losses in high counts to get more of the high cards, but it didn't seem to have a great effect.
For a few weeks I was practicing and keeping track of my wins vs losses and one session I happen to drop about a grand so maybe my luck will change tomorrow.
Atlantic City Shuffles
Hello all!
This is my first post here and I hope that with my 20 years of playing experience, I can help some of the newest members of the professional, and not so professional, blackjack players.
Atlantic City is a great place to cut your teeth learning the skills necessary to become a great player. One of the best things is that you cannot be barred (or worse) like you can in Vegas and other areas of the world.
I came here looking for some information about conditions in AC, specifically what I read in this post! How's that for luck??
Anyway, I have been playing in AC 99% for the last 20 years and throughout that time; I have been extremely successful, only having 3 single losing years.
However, 2006 and 2007 have been horrendous, not in dollars and cents so much as the losses were minor, but nonetheless losses. What I have noticed is that there IS definitely something strange going on. As the author who originated this thread stated, there seems to be some kind of severe bias being injected into the shoes in AC by the shuffles. The Claridge, Bally's & WWW, Caesars, The Trop and Borgata have changed their hand shuffled games to a 3 split, single pass shuffle.
What I and my partner, who I have been playing together with for 15+ years using the same system have witnessed, is that high count situations are killing us over and over and over. We have been trying to pass it off to standard deviation, but after speaking to a couple of other "regular" counters we know in AC, this may be more that SD in action. I have won for so many years that I figured the odds were just catching up to me, but something down deep is nagging at us. We have been trying to analyze what is happening, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it. We are getting some excellent penetration, sometimes a deck or even less on an 8 deck game, but on average I would have to say 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 deck cuts are the norm, which offers a great playing situation. We avoid the heavy cutters like the plague!! We were avoiding the S17 hit tables too, but now more and more tables are using it. Harrah's is indeed a bunch of GREEDY bastards.
The inefficiency of the shuffles seems to be causing the shoes to climb and drop in 2 deck increments. We use the RPC count and I will refrain from revealing what specific system criteria we use at this time, but we watch this over and over. The count will either climb or drop +20- +30 and then 2 decks later are back close to neutral, most times in one big clump. Then it may drop severely and then rise back again or continue to climb up to a high count again and when we try playing into it, we find out we have been slammed by what we call a "B" mode, i.e.: continuous small card production with an increasing high plus count. This happens many, many times over extended periods of play.
We have experienced these "modes" many times over the years but we are seeing them over and over and over, from more than one joint. We have been particularly careful to find tables that have been open for a few hours so to try and be sure the cards are shuffled thoroughly as possible. It's getting extremely frustrating, and at times we are wondering about our proficiency, but we play together almost exclusively and check and test each other continuously, so we feel we are playing at 99% accuracy.
What I am asking is if anyone who has played in AC for a long time has experienced anything similar to what I have expressed here? I can remember drooling over 4 and 6 deck games, but now I shy away from them because of the volatility of them. We have worked on negative count per hand tests and we have had some success, but I would much rather play a positive count. It's almost uncanny how we can watch the counts rise and fall almost predictably on 2 and 3 deck increments, but not reliable enough to use as indicators of favorable situations.
I hope I have expressed myself sufficiently to others here to hopefully find anyone else who may have experienced these conditions.
Thanks again for providing such a great place to communicate with others and hopefully we can all become the best we can be at beating the casinos at their own game.
MA21
Hello all!
This is my first post here and I hope that with my 20 years of playing experience, I can help some of the newest members of the professional, and not so professional, blackjack players.
Atlantic City is a great place to cut your teeth learning the skills necessary to become a great player. One of the best things is that you cannot be barred (or worse) like you can in Vegas and other areas of the world.
I came here looking for some information about conditions in AC, specifically what I read in this post! How's that for luck??
Anyway, I have been playing in AC 99% for the last 20 years and throughout that time; I have been extremely successful, only having 3 single losing years.
However, 2006 and 2007 have been horrendous, not in dollars and cents so much as the losses were minor, but nonetheless losses. What I have noticed is that there IS definitely something strange going on. As the author who originated this thread stated, there seems to be some kind of severe bias being injected into the shoes in AC by the shuffles. The Claridge, Bally's & WWW, Caesars, The Trop and Borgata have changed their hand shuffled games to a 3 split, single pass shuffle.
What I and my partner, who I have been playing together with for 15+ years using the same system have witnessed, is that high count situations are killing us over and over and over. We have been trying to pass it off to standard deviation, but after speaking to a couple of other "regular" counters we know in AC, this may be more that SD in action. I have won for so many years that I figured the odds were just catching up to me, but something down deep is nagging at us. We have been trying to analyze what is happening, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it. We are getting some excellent penetration, sometimes a deck or even less on an 8 deck game, but on average I would have to say 1-1/4 to 1-3/4 deck cuts are the norm, which offers a great playing situation. We avoid the heavy cutters like the plague!! We were avoiding the S17 hit tables too, but now more and more tables are using it. Harrah's is indeed a bunch of GREEDY bastards.
The inefficiency of the shuffles seems to be causing the shoes to climb and drop in 2 deck increments. We use the RPC count and I will refrain from revealing what specific system criteria we use at this time, but we watch this over and over. The count will either climb or drop +20- +30 and then 2 decks later are back close to neutral, most times in one big clump. Then it may drop severely and then rise back again or continue to climb up to a high count again and when we try playing into it, we find out we have been slammed by what we call a "B" mode, i.e.: continuous small card production with an increasing high plus count. This happens many, many times over extended periods of play.
We have experienced these "modes" many times over the years but we are seeing them over and over and over, from more than one joint. We have been particularly careful to find tables that have been open for a few hours so to try and be sure the cards are shuffled thoroughly as possible. It's getting extremely frustrating, and at times we are wondering about our proficiency, but we play together almost exclusively and check and test each other continuously, so we feel we are playing at 99% accuracy.
What I am asking is if anyone who has played in AC for a long time has experienced anything similar to what I have expressed here? I can remember drooling over 4 and 6 deck games, but now I shy away from them because of the volatility of them. We have worked on negative count per hand tests and we have had some success, but I would much rather play a positive count. It's almost uncanny how we can watch the counts rise and fall almost predictably on 2 and 3 deck increments, but not reliable enough to use as indicators of favorable situations.
I hope I have expressed myself sufficiently to others here to hopefully find anyone else who may have experienced these conditions.
Thanks again for providing such a great place to communicate with others and hopefully we can all become the best we can be at beating the casinos at their own game.
MA21
Last edited:
Ok, well what we have seen is that when a table is first opened, the cards are washed and shuffled in 2 deck sets, not like they use to do when they would wash all 8 decks at one time and then stack them and shuffle them 2-3times. This causes the counts to rise and fall in 2 deck increments almost like clockwork.
They are shuffling in such an inefficient manner, that the cards take literally hours to mix. I can't count the number of times I've seen cards come out in order (2,3,4,5,6) or in sets or pairs. They are intentionally causing the cards to not randomize with their poor shuffles.
Hope this answers your question!
MA21
They are shuffling in such an inefficient manner, that the cards take literally hours to mix. I can't count the number of times I've seen cards come out in order (2,3,4,5,6) or in sets or pairs. They are intentionally causing the cards to not randomize with their poor shuffles.
Hope this answers your question!
MA21
Wow, 3 2-decks games in a row with 100% penetration lol.
Seems like it should be exploitable. Maybe lol.
I actually thought shoes that were never shuffled might give an advantage to even a BS player.
I don't think any shuffle will be truly random from one shoe to the next anyway. Not that that matters.
As to results, it's just hard to say isn't it? I'd at least make an effort to just analyze actual results in some fashion to see just how bad your luck has been lately as a starting point.
But a couple losing years out of 20 sounds pretty good! Keep the faith!
Seems like it should be exploitable. Maybe lol.
I actually thought shoes that were never shuffled might give an advantage to even a BS player.
I don't think any shuffle will be truly random from one shoe to the next anyway. Not that that matters.
As to results, it's just hard to say isn't it? I'd at least make an effort to just analyze actual results in some fashion to see just how bad your luck has been lately as a starting point.
But a couple losing years out of 20 sounds pretty good! Keep the faith!
In Rollem's case, that TC's of +9 don't happen very often in 6/8 8D H17 games.
Maybe if he told us how he is playing what we could figure out why he lost a grand before he loses another grand.
And so what if the count does seem to fluctuate, or even actually is, more than normal - the count is the count, isn't it? What choice do you have except to play it?
Maybe if he told us how he is playing what we could figure out why he lost a grand before he loses another grand.
And so what if the count does seem to fluctuate, or even actually is, more than normal - the count is the count, isn't it? What choice do you have except to play it?
Hello. I also use a variant of the RPC count, and have played a bit in AC. When conditions are right I use shuffle tracking and sequencing techniques there too.
I do not believe the negative fluctuation you are experiencing is an effect of any shuffle procedure. In fact, the shuffle used in one of the houses you mention (I won't say which one, discussing specific shuffles is taboo in public) actually introduces a very tiny bias in favor of the player. It's difficult to fathom how bad variance can turn sometime, but I don't believe the N0 of shoe blackjack (particularly in AC conditions) lends itself to any human perceiving an advantage or disadvantage. I think you're being shook up by the bad luck and join the club, that can happen to us all.
My recommendation to playing AC is strict backcounting, and the facts that you have a partner and you are using a strong balanced count are going to be very helpful to you. Backcounting is awkward and wearying but it really whips the llama's butt in terms of advantage. Being we don't have real heat in AC you can use very aggressive backcount tactics to put maximum torque on those otherwise lousy games.
I do not believe the negative fluctuation you are experiencing is an effect of any shuffle procedure. In fact, the shuffle used in one of the houses you mention (I won't say which one, discussing specific shuffles is taboo in public) actually introduces a very tiny bias in favor of the player. It's difficult to fathom how bad variance can turn sometime, but I don't believe the N0 of shoe blackjack (particularly in AC conditions) lends itself to any human perceiving an advantage or disadvantage. I think you're being shook up by the bad luck and join the club, that can happen to us all.
My recommendation to playing AC is strict backcounting, and the facts that you have a partner and you are using a strong balanced count are going to be very helpful to you. Backcounting is awkward and wearying but it really whips the llama's butt in terms of advantage. Being we don't have real heat in AC you can use very aggressive backcount tactics to put maximum torque on those otherwise lousy games.
I only asked because I had the feeling you are just getting started in all this stuff and, from what I remember, it sounded like maybe sometimes you sit at a new shuffle but maybe wong-out when things get bad. That sometimes it sounds like you are playing-all when one-on-one with a dealer and maybe sometimes you backcount and just enter a shoe at a certain point. And I have no idea of your bankroll. And I forget what count you use lol.
I just wouldn't want you to lose too much too quick in case you may be something really crazy. Are you still ahead of the curve?
I still can't tell a thing basically lol. But say, if you were back-counting, at what points do you enter and leave and at what counts do you bet how much? Or, if you do play in other ways, the same knid of thing.
But I have seen cards get stuck in those ASM's and I know they have been stuck for several shoes in a row once they took the machine apart. So that could mess things up for sure
I just wouldn't want you to lose too much too quick in case you may be something really crazy. Are you still ahead of the curve?
I still can't tell a thing basically lol. But say, if you were back-counting, at what points do you enter and leave and at what counts do you bet how much? Or, if you do play in other ways, the same knid of thing.
But I have seen cards get stuck in those ASM's and I know they have been stuck for several shoes in a row once they took the machine apart. So that could mess things up for sure
Kasi said:
I only asked because I had the feeling you are just getting started in all this stuff and, from what I remember, it sounded like maybe sometimes you sit at a new shuffle but maybe wong-out when things get bad. That sometimes it sounds like you are playing-all when one-on-one with a dealer and maybe sometimes you backcount and just enter a shoe at a certain point. And I have no idea of your bankroll. And I forget what count you use lol.
I just wouldn't want you to lose too much too quick in case you may be something really crazy. Are you still ahead of the curve?
I still can't tell a thing basically lol. But say, if you were back-counting, at what points do you enter and leave and at what counts do you bet how much? Or, if you do play in other ways, the same knid of thing.
But I have seen cards get stuck in those ASM's and I know they have been stuck for several shoes in a row once they took the machine apart. So that could mess things up for sure
I just wouldn't want you to lose too much too quick in case you may be something really crazy. Are you still ahead of the curve?
I still can't tell a thing basically lol. But say, if you were back-counting, at what points do you enter and leave and at what counts do you bet how much? Or, if you do play in other ways, the same knid of thing.
But I have seen cards get stuck in those ASM's and I know they have been stuck for several shoes in a row once they took the machine apart. So that could mess things up for sure
I use Zen count and wong-in at a +2 TC...Sometimes I will sit down and play a fresh shoe and play until the count drops below -2 TC, mostly because I feel the PB are wondering why I keep circling the floor and not playing..plus I am anxious.
I posted my bet spread a few times before and didn't want to keep posting, only because I think it would get annoying to some, but here it is again:
TC 0,+1 = 1 unit
+2 = 2 units
+3 = 4 units
+4 = 6 units
+5 = 7.5 units
>+6 = 10 units
I posted previously and Sonny responded with an OK on this spread, so I figured it was good. I'm picking at least semi decent games to play with regards to pen. and rules, plus the wonging worked. I also have a $5,000 BR. If you know what the ROR is with this spread it would be greatly appreciated.
I also haven't adjusted my spread to my BR with the losses as with the Kelly betting, but I thought it wouldn't be a problem...maybe I'm wrong.
I recently went to the Taj and dropped another 500 in mostly positve counts...I did play when the count was negative, but nothing that would lose a significant amount. The only thing that bugs me is that I practice at home with 8D and same rules and I actually see results and then when it comes down to the real deal, everything is different. I have been drinking too much now and its too late to continue with what I wanted to say, but I'm sure I will see a response in the morning.
As for the ASM's, I'm not going back to those any time soon.