no more counting

[kingGambler]

to avoid card counters, why dont all casino start to shuffle all cards that been played into the deck every round, or have the dealer shuffle the deck when ever he want so that u lose count.? can someone help me understand.
thanks

 

[rarensu39]

CSM's? Some places have this.

my only other guess is that the casino kinda targets those who THINK they can card count

i'm not sure, though. I'd like to know the answer too, though haha

 

[bjcount]

to avoid card counters, why dont all casino start to shuffle all cards that been played into the deck every round, or have the dealer shuffle the deck when ever he want so that u lose count.? can someone help me understand.
thanks

The less rounds a casino deals the less money they make. One round per deck would cost a casino more in lost revenue than all the counters they face could win.

BJC

 

[Sonny]

Most techniques to thwart card counters end up costing the casinos more money than they save. They could shuffle the decks after every hand but that would waste too much time. They would be dealing fewer hands per hour and winning less money from all the non-counters. Since probably only 1-in-10,000 players are competent card counters, they are losing money by dealing slowly to 99.9999% of their customers.

-Sonny-

 

[daddybo]

Argg

to avoid card counters, why dont all casino start to shuffle all cards that been played into the deck every round, or have the dealer shuffle the deck when ever he want so that u lose count.? can someone help me understand.
thanks

Because it is equally bad for all players to shuffle after every hand. Even if your not counting, a ten rich deck is still good for you. You just don't know it ahead of time.

Before some one says it.. I believe CSMs actually lower the house edge slightly.

 

[rarensu39]

yeah. CSM's do lower the house edge because more 10's come out.

but i think we all got the answer to the question that was asked. It makes a lot of sense at least. Since random playing, or even just BS will lose in the long run.

 

[MoneyPlays]

Most techniques to thwart card counters end up costing the casinos more money than they save. They could shuffle the decks after every hand but that would waste too much time. They would be dealing fewer hands per hour and winning less money from all the non-counters. Since probably only 1-in-10,000 players are competent card counters, they are losing money by dealing slowly to 99.9999% of their customers.

-Sonny-

Wow, I would not have guessed that much. Not doubting you at all, but are they any statistics that would bear this out? (why does it still sound like I'm doubting you? :laugh: )

I trust you Sonny.

 

[daddybo]

Most techniques to thwart card counters end up costing the casinos more money than they save. They could shuffle the decks after every hand but that would waste too much time. They would be dealing fewer hands per hour and winning less money from all the non-counters. Since probably only 1-in-10,000 players are competent card counters, they are losing money by dealing slowly to 99.9999% of their customers.

-Sonny-

I would even venture to say barring card counters probably cost the casinos money in the long run. I know there are times I go with a couple of whale ploppies and a half dozen slot players in tow. We don't go where I can't play.

They need to do the math.

 

[MoneyPlays]

Dead On

I would even venture to say barring card counters probably cost the casinos money in the long run. I know there are times I go with a couple of whale ploppies and a half dozen slot players in tow. We don't go where I can't play.

They need to do the math.

You got that right daddybo.

All those backing offs in Vegas have only hurt their business.

 

[SleightOfHand]

yeah. CSM's do lower the house edge because more 10's come out.

but i think we all got the answer to the question that was asked. It makes a lot of sense at least. Since random playing, or even just BS will lose in the long run.

More 10s come out? Where does this come from? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[daddybo]

More 10s come out? Where does this come from? Doesn't make sense to me.

You didn't know? They take the 10's removed from the Spanish 21 games and put them in the CSMs.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[MoneyPlays]

You didn't know? They take the 10's removed from the Spanish 21 games and put them in the CSMs.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: That was good for five lol's!:laugh:

 

[rarensu39]

More 10s come out? Where does this come from? Doesn't make sense to me.

http://tamburin.casinocitytimes.com/article/continuous-shufflers-revisited-1326

1. The average number of 10s per hand is slightly higher with a CSM game than with a game that uses a cut card.
2. The probability of getting a blackjack is slightly higher with a CSM game than it is with a game using a cut card.
3. The casino's edge over a basic strategy player is actually slightly less in a CSM game vs. a game using a cut card.
4. Overall the player in a CSM game will stand to lose about 20% more money because they will be dealt 20% more hands per hour in a CSM game.

not sure if it's true. but this says so...

but i don't know, i'm just a ploppy...

 

[Katweezel]

Good card counters a dime a dozen?

Most techniques to thwart card counters end up costing the casinos more money than they save. They could shuffle the decks after every hand but that would waste too much time. They would be dealing fewer hands per hour and winning less money from all the non-counters. Since probably only 1-in-10,000 players are competent card counters, they are losing money by dealing slowly to 99.9999% of their customers.

-Sonny-

Wow, only 1 in 10,000 huh? Gee then, you would think it would be in casinos' interests to promote card counting wouldn't you? Oh, hang on... They already did that, with the movie: '21'. I almost forgot. :eyepatch:

 

[JSTAT]

yeah. CSM's do lower the house edge because more 10's come out.

but i think we all got the answer to the question that was asked. It makes a lot of sense at least. Since random playing, or even just BS will lose in the long run.

Csm's have lessor holds because many players including ploppies know basic strategy. Csm's deal from the top of deck essentially. Basic strategy is devised for off the top of deck(s), therefore the house edge will be lower than highly penetrated deck(s) because of asymmetry. Deviations from basic strategy from a game with good penetration are needed to get the same result as "off the top." We might stand on 12's vs 2 or 16 vs 10's with more tens left if we are counting for example. Ploppies hit these numbers and the casinos reap the reward for decent penetration. If the cards stay static as with csm's, the basic strategy player loses less.

JSTAT

 

[InPlay]

Wow, only 1 in 10,000 huh? Gee then, you would think it would be in casinos' interests to promote card counting wouldn't you? Oh, hang on... They already did that, with the movie: '21'. I almost forgot. :eyepatch:

Look at that we have them all here on this site. All of them have gathered here? Makes you wonder. Wow, only 1 in 10,000 huh? Makes me wonder are we all fake or are we just lucky? Whatever ! It floats my boat either way. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[ihate17]

CSM, hold, basic strategy????

Csm's have lessor holds because many players including ploppies know basic strategy. Csm's deal from the top of deck essentially. Basic strategy is devised for off the top of deck(s), therefore the house edge will be lower than highly penetrated deck(s) because of asymmetry. Deviations from basic strategy from a game with good penetration are needed to get the same result as "off the top." We might stand on 12's vs 2 or 16 vs 10's with more tens left if we are counting for example. Ploppies hit these numbers and the casinos reap the reward for decent penetration. If the cards stay static as with csm's, the basic strategy player loses less.

JSTAT

The house edge on a CSM game is technically very very very slightly better than the edge on a ASM or hand shuffled equivalent game. This slight reduction is made up for several fold when compared to a hand shuffled game because of the additional hands.

The statement about players playing basic strategy goes way beyond the facts that the casinos themselves put out and each of us, in looking at other players at the table, know. By far the vast majority of blackjack players do not play proper basic strategy. Sure most know the real basics but every casino expects to make between 1.5-2.5% on blackjack games that only have house edges of around .5%. This is the average player but the player at the CSM table is worse overall. CSM tables are generally the lowest minimum bet tables in the casino which attract the least experienced players. When figuring in the casinos percentage profit, the CSM table will not have any cardcounters or bigger players (who are often offered better rules for bigger bets), so the percentage win on the CSM table must be HIGHER!!

As far as lower hold on a CSM table goes, where did you get that information?
Perhaps the tons of novices on these tables play very short sessions? If so the hold could be less but the win percentage is greater. I know the total dollar hold is far far less because these tables are loaded with red chip players.

ihate17

 

[tribute]

Basic strategy is devised for off the top of deck(s), therefore the house edge will be lower than highly penetrated deck(s) because of asymmetry. Deviations from basic strategy from a game with good penetration are needed to get the same result as "off the top."
JSTAT

You have addressed a point I have wondered about. How is the stated house advantage calculated for basic strategy? You say "off the top". I assumed it was averaged out as the shoe played out. Based on where the ten valued cards occur in the shoe, a player could have more advantage or disadvantage. Am I wrong on this? Where do you get your information?

 

[sagefr0g]

You have addressed a point I have wondered about. How is the stated house advantage calculated for basic strategy? You say "off the top". I assumed it was averaged out as the shoe played out. Based on where the ten valued cards occur in the shoe, a player could have more advantage or disadvantage. Am I wrong on this? Where do you get your information?

i think basic strategy is an essentially off the top of an undealt pack sort of thing. 1d, 2d, ...., 4d,.. 6d, 8d and it's can be rule dependent unless you use a generic form.
number of players and penetration is treated as virtually meaningless.
sort of this is how come we have matrices where some index number for the count we employ basic strategy deviations. or maybe we use composition dependent basic strategy plays in some instances. maybe even shoe state or pack state basic strategy plays, but i guess that is sort of esoteric.
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/truecount7.htm

so i guess since the basic strategy plays can very for how many decks you started with and rules, that yeah maybe there is some average dependence on how a given pack would play out over the long haul maybe. lol, good question i don't know either. thing is though we do have departures for shoe state count sort of situations. :whip:

 

[Kasi]

Since probably only 1-in-10,000 players are competent card counters, they are losing money by dealing slowly to 99.9999% of their customers.

No big deal. Just wondering.

Is your definition of "competent card counter" a more narrow one wherein you only refer to his competency as a card-counter? Like my 12 yr old nephew can use a level 3 count and, if the deck is dealt slowly enough, amaze his friends what the last card is lol. All he can do is add and subtract 1 or 2 or 3 from the total from the last card dealt.

Or, is it less narrow and perhaps include a guy who actually can add and subtract 1 from the total of the cards already dealt, maybe even divide competently enough by the remainder of decks, but doesn't know what amount is best to bet at different counts?

With or without indexes, maybe even picked up on the fact from somewhere what an optimal to bet is at each count.

Or is your definition even perhaps more narrow and only includes a guy who can count, can bet the right amounts and understand his risk to his roll and is able to measure where he stands that evening when he comes home?

I can understand a casino banning a guy just becasue he bets "properly" - a casino can't know whether that's "all" he knows and whether, even so, not knowing his total roll, whether or not he is over-betting it and doomed to failure or whether he isn't and he is doomed to win forever.

Just trying to say, maybe many think it's only about whether they can count a deck in 27.4 seconds or not. It's more about roll and risk to me.

So, to me, "competent card counter" means, he can count, he knows what bet, and he understands and can measure his risks after every session.

So, by my very narrow definition, maybe 1 guy in 10000 who thinks he is a "competent card counter" isn't lol.

Just a point to debate lol.