Settle an argument abouy # decks

[Young Man]

I was discussing with my colleague that even if you don't count cards your disadvantage is increased if the casino employ a countinuous shuffling machine. My argument was the csm makes it very unlikely the remaing cards will have a favourable ratio of high to low cards because of the addition of a new deck every 30 cards or so. And also the more decks used the bigger the disadvantage.

His argument was that it makes no difference because on average the ratio of high to low will tend to a long-run average so that if your not counting a csm makes no difference to your chances of winning. And that number of decks makes no difference either.

Who's right? I'm thinking he is

 

[shadroch]

CSMs favor the house because a non-counter is at a disadvantage every hand and CSMs allow the casino to deal more hands per hour. In a DD game, perhaps six minutes an hour are devoted to shuffling and you can't lose anything during that time. A CSM will deal at least 10% faster and you'll lose at a similar faster rate.

 

[Sucker]

More decks = Higher -EV.

In other words:
If you had 2 CSMs, one loaded with 2 decks and the other with 6 decks, and had a perfect BS player playing on each; after one million hands are played, you would have to expect that the person on the 6 deck CSM would lose more money than the other person.

 

[Young Man]

More decks = Higher -EV.

In other words:
If you had 2 CSMs, one loaded with 2 decks and the other with 6 decks, and had a perfect BS player playing on each; after one million hands are played, you would have to expect that the person on the 6 deck CSM would lose more money than the other person.

Why is this? Ratio of high to low cards isthe same?

 

[Sucker]

Why is this? Ratio of high to low cards isthe same?

The effect of removal of each card is the difference. For example (and this is only one of MANY possible examples); if the dealer has a 5 as an upcard; in DD only 7/8 of the fives are left in the deck, whereas in a six deck game; 23/24 of the fives are left. Because it will be a little bit harder for the dealer to hit with a five, the dealer will bust slightly more often in DD. This difference might be small, but NOT so small as to be insignificant.

 

[moo321]

The effect of removal of each card is the difference. For example (and this is only one of MANY possible examples); if the dealer has a 5 as an upcard; in DD only 7/8 of the fives are left in the deck, whereas in a six deck game; 23/24 of the fives are left. Because it will be a little bit harder for the dealer to hit with a five, the dealer will bust slightly more often in DD. This difference might be small, but NOT so small as to be insignificant.

There's a few other small differences. Like if you have 5-6 to double down, the deck is slightly more ten-rich in a single decker than a shoe. Also, your blackjacks don't get tied as frequently.

 

[Young Man]

Ok, thanks - makes sense now.

 

[christopher1]

shouldnt a CSM eliminate the cut card effect and be advantageous for a non-counter? except that hes gonna place more bets/hour. i could be wrong im not an expert on BJ in any sense

 

[Thunder]

Christopher is correct. The removal of the cut card effect, makes the CSM game more favorable for the basic strategy player or ploppy by a slim margin. That said, the same player will lose more money over the course of play due to playing more hands.

 

[Nynefingers]

shouldnt a CSM eliminate the cut card effect and be advantageous for a non-counter? except that hes gonna place more bets/hour. i could be wrong im not an expert on BJ in any sense

Correct on both counts. No cut card effect, but more hands per hour, so the net result will still be to lose faster.

 

[bigplayer]

I was discussing with my colleague that even if you don't count cards your disadvantage is increased if the casino employ a countinuous shuffling machine. My argument was the csm makes it very unlikely the remaing cards will have a favourable ratio of high to low cards because of the addition of a new deck every 30 cards or so. And also the more decks used the bigger the disadvantage.

His argument was that it makes no difference because on average the ratio of high to low will tend to a long-run average so that if your not counting a csm makes no difference to your chances of winning. And that number of decks makes no difference either.

Who's right? I'm thinking he is

It's the opposite, with a CSM 6 deck game versus a shoe 6 deck game the basic strategy player is better off versus the CSM. No (or drastically reduced) cut card effect on the CSM.

 

[Syph]

Well, for a bit of fun ...

"A player can DEFINITELY follow accurate basic strategy, and a positive progression and have an actual edge. It hurts to say it, but the progression player is correct about being able to beat the newer CSMs."

http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BJTappendixB.htm

Now, Clarke is a touch insane. However, even if the voices aren't real ... they still say some cool shit sometimes.

 

[aslan]

Well, for a bit of fun ...

"A player can DEFINITELY follow accurate basic strategy, and a positive progression and have an actual edge. It hurts to say it, but the progression player is correct about being able to beat the newer CSMs."

http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BJTappendixB.htm

Now, Clarke is a touch insane. However, even if the voices aren't real ... they still say some cool shit sometimes.

What the heck was he saying? Could anybody follow it?

 

[Sucker]

What the heck was he saying? Could anybody follow it?

To paraphrase the guy:

The FIRST thing he does is to start the article with a bit of mathematical double-speak, in an attempt to razzle-dazzle us with his "superior intelligence". Makes us afraid to speak up about the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.

Then comes the meat & potatoes of his "theory":
When a CSM shuffles discards back into the deck, THOSE cards can't come out on the NEXT hand, because they only get shuffled into the deck & not into the buffer, where the cards for the next hand come from. Then he says that because of the "cut card" effect, the SMALL cards will over time, end up in the back of the deck, rarely if ever returning to play. So according to his theory, the buffer will contain cards that are rich in tens an inordinate amount of times.

In my opinion there's probably a BIT of truth to what he says, but I seriously doubt that it's going to swing the advantage .4% to .6%, as he claims. I'm guessing it's closer to .001%. than it is to .4%.

I have to agree with Syph's assessment: The guy's maybe a little bit insane.