Sands, Parx, and Mount Airy
- Thread starter cardcounter_newplayer
- Start date
I don't believe you are reading this rule (549.6-e) correctly, aslan. I understand it to say that after the player cuts the cards, the dealer takes the entire stack and aligns it against the side of the shoe, which has a mark that will allow the dealer to insert the cut card at least 1/4 of the way from the bottom of the stack. That would mean at least 25% of the cards are cut off. At least, as in minimum. So I read it that maximum penetration can be 75%. 
Hasn't exactly been my experience so far, nor what many other reports have stated, but we won't complain about that one. :laugh:
Hasn't exactly been my experience so far, nor what many other reports have stated, but we won't complain about that one. :laugh:Quoting from the Shufflemaster (TM) site - my bolds.
"Utilizing six touch-screen player stations embedded in a standard size blackjack table, the i-Table™ combines an intuitive electronic betting interface with a live dealer who deals the selected game from the appropriate Shuffle Master Utility Product (i.e. i-Shoe Auto intelligent card reading shoe for games like blackjack and baccarat, or the i-Deal specialty shuffler that includes card recognition).
By automating the betting process, the i-Table dramatically increases live table game security, accuracy and speed, resulting in an estimated 30% increase in rounds per hour while eliminating errors. Further, its integrated card and bet recognition functionality instantaneously records a variety of crucial table game data points including actual win/loss and handle per player while providing accurate player ratings and skill analysis.
"
) site - my bolds."Utilizing six touch-screen player stations embedded in a standard size blackjack table, the i-Table™ combines an intuitive electronic betting interface with a live dealer who deals the selected game from the appropriate Shuffle Master Utility Product (i.e. i-Shoe Auto intelligent card reading shoe for games like blackjack and baccarat, or the i-Deal specialty shuffler that includes card recognition).
By automating the betting process, the i-Table dramatically increases live table game security, accuracy and speed, resulting in an estimated 30% increase in rounds per hour while eliminating errors. Further, its integrated card and bet recognition functionality instantaneously records a variety of crucial table game data points including actual win/loss and handle per player while providing accurate player ratings and skill analysis.
"
I double both @ +1, which is the number for both EV-max and R-A that is listed in BJA3. There are simulations that show little difference between precise EV-max indices and rounded indices and I know Monkey rounds off indices in his Ben Franklin Count, which probably puts A8 vs 5,6 in the same rounded off block as insurance and stand 12 vs 2.
kewljason said:
I don't believe you are reading this rule (549.6-e) correctly, aslan. I understand it to say that after the player cuts the cards, the dealer takes the entire stack and aligns it against the side of the shoe, which has a mark that will allow the dealer to insert the cut card at least 1/4 of the way from the bottom of the stack. That would mean at least 25% of the cards are cut off. At least, as in minimum. So I read it that maximum penetration can be 75%. Hasn't exactly been my experience so far, nor what many other reports have stated, but we won't complain about that one. :laugh:
Hasn't exactly been my experience so far, nor what many other reports have stated, but we won't complain about that one. :laugh:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-23/1039.html
Some of the rules are quite confusing the way they are written. (typical legalese) I am still not sure about re-splitting ace. section 549.12 (splitting pairs) section C, sub section 1 states "a player may split one more pair, if the second card dealt is identical in value to a card of the split pair for a total of three hands". There is no specification that aces can be split only once. The very next section, section C, subsection 2, states "a player splitting aces may only have one card dealt to each ace". I would take these two sections together to mean that you can resplit aces for a total of three hands but only receive 1 card on each ace, but that is not what the casinos are allowing. They are allowing aces to only be split once with one card dealt to each. Anyone else's take on this?
Some of the rules are quite confusing the way they are written. (typical legalese) I am still not sure about re-splitting ace.
section 549.12 (splitting pairs) section C, sub section 1 states "a player may split one more pair, if the second card dealt is identical in value to a card of the split pair for a total of three hands". There is no specification that aces can be split only once. The very next section, section C, subsection 2, states "a player splitting aces may only have one card dealt to each ace". I would take these two sections together to mean that you can resplit aces for a total of three hands but only receive 1 card on each ace, but that is not what the casinos are allowing. They are allowing aces to only be split once with one card dealt to each. Anyone else's take on this?
Last edited:
kewljason said:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-23/1039.html
Some of the rules are quite confusing the way they are written. (typical legalese) I am still not sure about re-splitting ace. section 549.12 (splitting pairs) section C, sub section 1 states "a player may split one more pair, if the second card dealt is identical in value to a card of the split pair for a total of three hands". There is no specification that aces can be split only once. The very next section, section C, subsection 2, states "a player splitting aces may only have one card dealt to each ace". I would take these two sections together to mean that you can resplit aces for a total of three hands but only receive 1 card on each ace, but that is not what the casinos are allowing. They are allowing aces to only be split once with one card dealt to each. Anyone else's take on this?
Some of the rules are quite confusing the way they are written. (typical legalese) I am still not sure about re-splitting ace.
section 549.12 (splitting pairs) section C, sub section 1 states "a player may split one more pair, if the second card dealt is identical in value to a card of the split pair for a total of three hands". There is no specification that aces can be split only once. The very next section, section C, subsection 2, states "a player splitting aces may only have one card dealt to each ace". I would take these two sections together to mean that you can resplit aces for a total of three hands but only receive 1 card on each ace, but that is not what the casinos are allowing. They are allowing aces to only be split once with one card dealt to each. Anyone else's take on this?
Also, what do you make of this:
Whenever the cutting card is the first card in the dealing shoe at the beginning of a round of play or is reached in the deal of the cards, the dealer shall continue dealing the cards until that round of play is completed
Wherever I play, when the cut card is the first card for the next round, the dealer goes to the shuffle instead of dealing one more round. Above seems to say the dealer should deal one more round.
Yes, in AC and other places, if the cut card is the first card out in a round, they do not play that round. I have yet to actually see if Pa handles it the way the rule is stated, but if they do, it is actually deeper penetration than at first glance.
I remember the first time I read through the rules I was stunned at the mention of a "double shoe" in section 549.2 subsection G. To date I have not seen nor heard of any mention of use of such a shoe. I guess it is for future consideration.
However, Parx is using covered shoes with hidden discard trays, which I see no mention of in the rules. As a matter of fact section 549.2 subsection F states that "each blackjack table shall have a discard rack securely attached to the top of the dealer's side of the table. Subsection 2 goes on to say "the discard rack must have a distinct and clearly visable mark on it's side to show the exact height for a stack of cards equal to the total in use". These hidden discard racks at Parx seem to clearly violate these rules.
I remember the first time I read through the rules I was stunned at the mention of a "double shoe" in section 549.2 subsection G. To date I have not seen nor heard of any mention of use of such a shoe. I guess it is for future consideration.
However, Parx is using covered shoes with hidden discard trays, which I see no mention of in the rules. As a matter of fact section 549.2 subsection F states that "each blackjack table shall have a discard rack securely attached to the top of the dealer's side of the table. Subsection 2 goes on to say "the discard rack must have a distinct and clearly visable mark on it's side to show the exact height for a stack of cards equal to the total in use". These hidden discard racks at Parx seem to clearly violate these rules.
kewljason said:
Yes, in AC and other places, if the cut card is the first card out in a round, they do not play that round. I have yet to actually see if Pa handles it the way the rule is stated, but if they do, it is actually deeper penetration than at first glance.
I remember the first time I read through the rules I was stunned at the mention of a "double shoe" in section 549.2 subsection G. To date I have not seen nor heard of any mention of use of such a shoe. I guess it is for future consideration.
However, Parx is using covered shoes with hidden discard trays, which I see no mention of in the rules. As a matter of fact section 549.2 subsection F states that "each blackjack table shall have a discard rack securely attached to the top of the dealer's side of the table. Subsection 2 goes on to say "the discard rack must have a distinct and clearly visable mark on it's side to show the exact height for a stack of cards equal to the total in use". These hidden discard racks at Parx seem to clearly violate these rules.
I remember the first time I read through the rules I was stunned at the mention of a "double shoe" in section 549.2 subsection G. To date I have not seen nor heard of any mention of use of such a shoe. I guess it is for future consideration.
However, Parx is using covered shoes with hidden discard trays, which I see no mention of in the rules. As a matter of fact section 549.2 subsection F states that "each blackjack table shall have a discard rack securely attached to the top of the dealer's side of the table. Subsection 2 goes on to say "the discard rack must have a distinct and clearly visable mark on it's side to show the exact height for a stack of cards equal to the total in use". These hidden discard racks at Parx seem to clearly violate these rules.