For any shuffle tracker
- Thread starter li_ka_shing168
- Start date
Mark Billings The Ultimate Edge
I was looking for anything else Mr. Billings wrote via Google and came across this thread. The Ultimate Edge contains a huge amount on shuffle tracking, both in the main body of the book and in Appendix IV.
I would love to explain it, but you would miss all that is good about the book. This is not only the best blackjack book I've ever read; it is one of the best books I've ever read, period.
Trying to recap Billings' shuffle tracking explanation (or the "slicing and dicing" chapter, which was my personal favorite) would be like trying to explain "Arrested Development." You just have to see the show to apppreciate it.
Similarly, you have to read this book to fully appreciate it. No explanation can do the writing (or the story) justice.
And, I don't know if the "Reed" in the book is the "Reid" mentioned above, but he is my favorite character. I was reading part of the book on a plane and laughing, and the people in the seats nearby were looking at me like I was out of my mind.
I was looking for anything else Mr. Billings wrote via Google and came across this thread. The Ultimate Edge contains a huge amount on shuffle tracking, both in the main body of the book and in Appendix IV.
I would love to explain it, but you would miss all that is good about the book. This is not only the best blackjack book I've ever read; it is one of the best books I've ever read, period.
Trying to recap Billings' shuffle tracking explanation (or the "slicing and dicing" chapter, which was my personal favorite) would be like trying to explain "Arrested Development." You just have to see the show to apppreciate it.
Similarly, you have to read this book to fully appreciate it. No explanation can do the writing (or the story) justice.
And, I don't know if the "Reed" in the book is the "Reid" mentioned above, but he is my favorite character. I was reading part of the book on a plane and laughing, and the people in the seats nearby were looking at me like I was out of my mind.
It is a great read, no doubt.
But, to me, with today's complex multi-zone shuffles, (with multiple plugs), I find it hard to believe that i can use JUST my eyes to shuffle-track and Ace Sequence, etc., even if my vision was good, which it is certainly NOT.
It is analogous to the fact that dealers really did manually PEEK in the early 80's (the end of the time frame of this book). By the late 80's no major casino was without mirrored peeking devices.
Much of this book is concerned with "Spooking" and "Front Loading" dealers, etc.
Naturally, as is outlined in the book, it did not take all that long for hidden computers were deemed "cheating devices", making their mere possession a felony.
But, to me, with today's complex multi-zone shuffles, (with multiple plugs), I find it hard to believe that i can use JUST my eyes to shuffle-track and Ace Sequence, etc., even if my vision was good, which it is certainly NOT.
It is analogous to the fact that dealers really did manually PEEK in the early 80's (the end of the time frame of this book). By the late 80's no major casino was without mirrored peeking devices.
Much of this book is concerned with "Spooking" and "Front Loading" dealers, etc.
Naturally, as is outlined in the book, it did not take all that long for hidden computers were deemed "cheating devices", making their mere possession a felony.
Have you read this..
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/taftint.html
Looks like the blueprint for Mr. Billings book.
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/taftint.html
Looks like the blueprint for Mr. Billings book.
What i am saying is that a game perceived by you as a rubbish game is not perceived by others as a rubbish game.
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
BJQueen said:
What i am saying is that a game perceived by you as a rubbish game is not perceived by others as a rubbish game.
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
I've read quite a few of your posts now and so far i think your posts fail to present any knowledge over and above the common place. You are constantly alluding to something that you know but aren't saying and often are simply off par. This is the same sort of behaviour that has been common in the Voodoo forum with posters claiming that we need to "open our minds" to whatever progression system they've come up with without actually providing any supporting evidance
This is a terrible shuffle - anyone who is good enough to actually track this shuffle profitably is good enough to find a) better shuffles to track and b) stronger advantages than most shuffle tracking will allow.
Prime's stated that a casino cutting off 2.5 decks and taking 5 minutes at a time to shuffle was wasting their own time and was completely correct in his assertation that the casino is bleeding money and not due to advantage play.
If you want to present yourself as an experienced player you're going to need to back up your persona with more than dubious advice and unsupported statements about your personal experience.....
RJT.
BJQueen said:
What i am saying is that a game perceived by you as a rubbish game is not perceived by others as a rubbish game.
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
Sorry, but that responce gets you the title of faker. I've had the honor of speaking to many very tallented AP from many different groups and they can all talk a good game as well a play - you can't even talk it.
This sort of responce is likely to quickly take us down card clumping or pattern recognition.
I'm usually one of the more trusting members when it comes to who people claim to be, but you are clearly just full of it.
RJT.
This sort of responce is likely to quickly take us down card clumping or pattern recognition.
I'm usually one of the more trusting members when it comes to who people claim to be, but you are clearly just full of it.
RJT.
BJQueen said:
What i am saying is that a game perceived by you as a rubbish game is not perceived by others as a rubbish game.
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
There are many factors that you quite obviously have not considered in your determination that the game is not beatable.
I am not wrong.
I just see things from a different "Angle" than you do.
thats all
Agreed
I agree the people in the video did not look like they knew what they were doing im sure watching the dealer at whatever casino this shuffle is being used at would be much different then watching these two goofballs doing it in there moms kitchen. Every shuffle which is done by a human has weakness and can in some way be exploited, obviously some are much easier then others but im sure if you watched it at the casino for a while and then did it yourself a few times you could find a way to get some sort of advantage. Maybe just find one pack of neg or pos cards on the bottom and cut to it that seems like it might work out for this shuffle. It didnt look like the bottom was riffed in to much so i think a pack of maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of a deck could be tracked and would only spread to maybe 2 decks . You could either cut in the high cards or chop out the little cards whichever oppurtunity presented itself in the first deck of play. As long as its not the machines which take a great understanding of how the machine itself works down to very fine details i believe all human shuffles are trackable in some way shape or form. If all else fails look for that back card and try some steering with a friend or 2 if your not finding it within your skill level to track the packs of cards. Something can always be done.
I agree the people in the video did not look like they knew what they were doing im sure watching the dealer at whatever casino this shuffle is being used at would be much different then watching these two goofballs doing it in there moms kitchen. Every shuffle which is done by a human has weakness and can in some way be exploited, obviously some are much easier then others but im sure if you watched it at the casino for a while and then did it yourself a few times you could find a way to get some sort of advantage. Maybe just find one pack of neg or pos cards on the bottom and cut to it that seems like it might work out for this shuffle. It didnt look like the bottom was riffed in to much so i think a pack of maybe 1/2 to 3/4 of a deck could be tracked and would only spread to maybe 2 decks . You could either cut in the high cards or chop out the little cards whichever oppurtunity presented itself in the first deck of play. As long as its not the machines which take a great understanding of how the machine itself works down to very fine details i believe all human shuffles are trackable in some way shape or form. If all else fails look for that back card and try some steering with a friend or 2 if your not finding it within your skill level to track the packs of cards. Something can always be done.
Even though the very first deck shuffled is only shuffled once at the start, and once at the very end, there is still a problem. This section of cards are cutoffs from the old shoe, so you do not know the exact composition of this small area. Having slight knowledge about 1/2 a deck out of 8 decks really isn't going to do you any good.
BJQueen why don't you enlighten us with your magical ways of beating this shuffle, because I'm pretty sure everyone else here is stumped on ways to get a reasonable advantage out of this shuffle. The only thing that I can think of is comp counting, because you would waste so much time watching the dealer shuffle, instead of losing money.
BJQueen why don't you enlighten us with your magical ways of beating this shuffle, because I'm pretty sure everyone else here is stumped on ways to get a reasonable advantage out of this shuffle. The only thing that I can think of is comp counting, because you would waste so much time watching the dealer shuffle, instead of losing money.
The video of the shuffle is so disjointed and the dudes don't seem to know what they are doing. I wish I hadn't watched it as I have wasted that time of my life.
The only thing I see is the obvious flashing of cards. If BJQ is alluding that those cards are flashed as part of the shuffle then this has been a waste of everyone's time because it won't be flashed like that in a casino.
The only thing I see is the obvious flashing of cards. If BJQ is alluding that those cards are flashed as part of the shuffle then this has been a waste of everyone's time because it won't be flashed like that in a casino.
Shuffle Tracking
I have read only 3 blackjack books: Revere's book, Mezrich's book (which I now understand is largely fiction), and The Ultimate Edge. I am by no means a pro, so please bear with me.
I found a series of articles that Mark Billings wrote for the blackjack Insider. Apropos the above argument about beatable shuffles, here's part of what he said:
------------------------------------------------------------
The edge in shuffle tracking works much like the edge in regular blackjack. Just because the being dealt is blackjack does not mean a card counter can beat it. Whether or not a game can be beaten (or can be beaten to the tune of .5%, or 1%, or whatever) is based upon a number of factors:
- the number of decks in use
- the rules employed
- the depth of the deal (i.e., do they deal out 2 decks out of 6, 3 out of 6, or 4 out of 6?)
- the bet spread you can get away with
Similarly, not all shuffles are trackable, and some shuffles are more trackable than others. For example:
1. Autoshufflers almost certainly cannot be tracked. I don't know this for sure; one way to know would be to buy one, put 6 new decks through it (so you would know the exact order of the cards going in), and then check out the order in which they come out. Do this a couple of thousand times, and you might be able to detect some pattern that remains after going through the machine. (I doubt it; however, I've never done the research, so there is no way for me to know for sure.)
2. There are a number of shuffles that sufficiently randomize cards from one shoe to the next. It doesn’t matter what you do; if certain clumps do not maintain their integrity throughout the shuffle, then shuffle tracking will not obtain you an edge.
To put this in card counting terms: imagine a 6-deck game in which the cards are reshuffled after 3 decks come out, Reno rules (double 10 and 11 only, dealer hits soft 17), and you are limited to a bet spread of 1-4. It doesn't matter who you are; you just can't beat that game.
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I'm no expert, but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I have read only 3 blackjack books: Revere's book, Mezrich's book (which I now understand is largely fiction), and The Ultimate Edge. I am by no means a pro, so please bear with me.
I found a series of articles that Mark Billings wrote for the blackjack Insider. Apropos the above argument about beatable shuffles, here's part of what he said:
------------------------------------------------------------
The edge in shuffle tracking works much like the edge in regular blackjack. Just because the being dealt is blackjack does not mean a card counter can beat it. Whether or not a game can be beaten (or can be beaten to the tune of .5%, or 1%, or whatever) is based upon a number of factors:
- the number of decks in use
- the rules employed
- the depth of the deal (i.e., do they deal out 2 decks out of 6, 3 out of 6, or 4 out of 6?)
- the bet spread you can get away with
Similarly, not all shuffles are trackable, and some shuffles are more trackable than others. For example:
1. Autoshufflers almost certainly cannot be tracked. I don't know this for sure; one way to know would be to buy one, put 6 new decks through it (so you would know the exact order of the cards going in), and then check out the order in which they come out. Do this a couple of thousand times, and you might be able to detect some pattern that remains after going through the machine. (I doubt it; however, I've never done the research, so there is no way for me to know for sure.)
2. There are a number of shuffles that sufficiently randomize cards from one shoe to the next. It doesn’t matter what you do; if certain clumps do not maintain their integrity throughout the shuffle, then shuffle tracking will not obtain you an edge.
To put this in card counting terms: imagine a 6-deck game in which the cards are reshuffled after 3 decks come out, Reno rules (double 10 and 11 only, dealer hits soft 17), and you are limited to a bet spread of 1-4. It doesn't matter who you are; you just can't beat that game.
------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I'm no expert, but this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
What you gotta do for this type of shuffle, is abandon all hopes of tracking large segments of cards, at best youll get tc values of like +/- 0.5 or 0.8 or something not very useful.
Attack small segments of cards that you know the location of, and avoid dealers that, when performing the seoncd half of the shuffle,pick up very small sections from each fo the four stacks before riffling them.
You can try to "become excited" about playign the next shoe, in an effort to hurry them along, usualy they take larger segments when they are hurriing becaue they know it takes less time.
Take note that you know the TC of the entire cuttoof from the previous shoe, and even though it is broken into three segments pending the plugs, the tc stil apllies to each fo those segments, the one placed on the bottom of the shoe will become the top of the shoe mixed with cards with an average tc that is figurable by taking not of the pentration from the previous shoe. after the first breakdown/shuffle the cards of interest will be the top, and during the second breakdown/shuffle, they will be of the first cards picked up, and shuffled, making them easy to follow and predict the value of.
Martin put it well, in that ultimately the integrety of the cards you are following need to remain intact, in this type of shuffle, it is common to have the segment broken up, and them mixed with other cards to a ratio of 1:4ish making the value of the known cards not very signifigant. The key is finding dealer that shuffle larger clumps of cards per riffle, and following smaller segments to reduce this occurance.
Thats my input.
Attack small segments of cards that you know the location of, and avoid dealers that, when performing the seoncd half of the shuffle,pick up very small sections from each fo the four stacks before riffling them.
You can try to "become excited" about playign the next shoe, in an effort to hurry them along, usualy they take larger segments when they are hurriing becaue they know it takes less time.
Take note that you know the TC of the entire cuttoof from the previous shoe, and even though it is broken into three segments pending the plugs, the tc stil apllies to each fo those segments, the one placed on the bottom of the shoe will become the top of the shoe mixed with cards with an average tc that is figurable by taking not of the pentration from the previous shoe. after the first breakdown/shuffle the cards of interest will be the top, and during the second breakdown/shuffle, they will be of the first cards picked up, and shuffled, making them easy to follow and predict the value of.
Martin put it well, in that ultimately the integrety of the cards you are following need to remain intact, in this type of shuffle, it is common to have the segment broken up, and them mixed with other cards to a ratio of 1:4ish making the value of the known cards not very signifigant. The key is finding dealer that shuffle larger clumps of cards per riffle, and following smaller segments to reduce this occurance.
Thats my input.