Shuffle Tracking

[iCountNTrack]

Can't agree with that. I'd rather know how close I am to the true count. In terms of shuffle tracking, presumably you are doing all your math outside the casino. If you get to the casino and the dealer is doing something consistently a bit different (let's say consuming a pile in 7 grabs instead of 6) you now have to go home and do your math again. But if he's doing his 6 grabs with a +/- 30% grab variation, you know that most of the cards are still where they are supposed to be most of the time, and when you predict a high count you know you are somewhere between a neutral count and a super-high count. I'll take it.

You obviously misread my post AM, precision of dealer in handling of cards, and slugs is the most important for shuffle-trackers, when did I mention anything about true count.

[/QUOTE]Keep in mind that in terms of playing blackjack it doesn't matter what the count of a shoe or a segment is- all that matters is what cards come out on the next round and we will never be certain of that.[/QUOTE]

Not true, There is no certainty in blackjack, but there are more advantageous situations for the player such as knowing that the coming slug has a large excess of high as indicated by its count. And by the way the count of shoe is zero for a balanced, not so useful mate.

 

[iCountNTrack]

I appreciate your comments CountNTrack. A couple things though. At my casino most dealers ( I will try and only play these dealers) just take all the unplayed cards, put them ontop of the discard pile and then split that 6 deck stack into two and then use the shuffle method described in the first post. So i just split that deck that was unplayed ( The game is 83% pen usually) into two and whatever the count is i just assume its split evenly between the two. Not a perfect assumption but its the best I can do.


Also you and sonny talk about deck estimation. Why do I need to know deck estimation? I know that I can cut the right amount of decks off each time but for my system I just count every 26 cards in my head and thats how I know the count of every 26 cards.

When you say safe zone do you mean that you can assume the actual count of the deck is somewhere between a plus/minus of the count you think it is?

yes because clearly there are uncertainties and random errors, I would say +-2 at least,so if the count is -7 (excess of high cards), if you assume an overestimation of high cards, the count would be -5 which is still very good.

 

[1357111317]

What do you think my EV would be with this method compared to someone who is just couting ( assuming I bet the same units as a counter would on counts, lets say +1 unit for every TC increase)

 

[iCountNTrack]

What do you think my EV would be with this method compared to someone who is just couting ( assuming I bet the same units as a counter would on counts, lets say +1 unit for every TC increase)

Your EV should be about 2-3% keep mind it all depends on how efficient and fast your method without making any errors as errors are most costly for ST

 

[Tarzan]

Elusive and frustrating

Although the mathematical aspects noted are true and accurate, the shuffle varies slightly from shuffle to shuffle and dealer to dealer. This remains very constant as I notice dealers break down the cards fairly precisely for doing the house shuffle, which remains constant at a given casino. This makes the mathematical breakdown noted in the previous posts sound theory. What will seem to vary greatly are the remaining cards in the shoe that are plugged into the discard rack. Even though it’s the same number of “plugs” of cards going into the discard rack from the remainder of the shoe, their placement is not an exact science and will vary from shuffle to shuffle and from dealer to dealer. Watching these cards getting plugged in closely and determining how this changes where that little group you are concerned about, that astounding run of 9 aces coming out of 12 cards played, that whacky and seemingly endless supply of face cards, etc. means everything, I would think. This plugging of remaining cards into the discard rack is the biggest variable involved.


In around 25 years of playing blackjack, I have become as good as it gets when it comes to counting even to the extent of gauging deviation from basic strategy based on those “neutral cards” not being so very neutral and going way beyond just your basic high/low count. I have gone to great lengths to try and learn to clump track/shuffle track for many long hours for some years now. It seems like the final step, the final thing to be the best possible blackjack player---a “holy grail of blackjack” of sorts…but it has been elusive and frustrating to me. I have practiced eyeing the discard rack, breaking it down by deck, used little pieces of paper (“post-it” notes of various colors) to note placement, separated all the aces in the deck placing them in a random spot and then perform standard house shuffle to see if I can determine where they go to, etc. but I have worked so hard to achieve so little. I have worked on every conceivable method of trying to learn or develop this and in all this time have not gained what I could honestly call any reasonable mastery of it. I avidly read any and all posts on this subject to see if and how they can help me in this regard and this is primarily why I originally joined this group (No, it was not so I could gain criticism of my various “bizarre screed” that shows my insensitivity from Flash and Shad). At best I can determine a “ballpark” of one given clump to place it into the middle of the shoe or to at least avoid having it end up behind the cut card at the end of the shoe. This is not exactly a stellar result given the amount of effort I have put into this.


Zen, other panel of experts…somebody? I have heard of people that do this and are proficient at this---do you know any of them first hand? Can you substantiate what CountNTrack has to say (Obviously he does not play in Atlantic City as I have never seen them simply place the remainder of the shoe on the top of the discard rack and them begin the shuffle, they always as part of the standard house shuffle split the cards up into 3 "plugs" inserted in somewhat even distribution)? Am I chasing a pipedream and this is merely myth and legend? Is it a matter of this not being a clearly definable thing to attain any constant measure of success at? Am I trying for the unattainable and the “holy grail of blackjack” does not actually exist??? Is the monumental effort required much more than any significant advantage that can possibly be attained? Worse yet is the notion that maybe in a few more years of tedious detailed effort I finally gain what can be defined as true ability at this just about the time all casinos go to ASM’s!!! I have worked so hard to achieve so very little at this…it has been elusive and frustrating.

 

[bjcount]

Zen, other panel of experts…somebody? I have heard of people that do this and are proficient at this---do you know any of them first hand? Am I chasing a pipedream and this is merely myth and legend? Is it a matter of this not being a clearly definable thing to attain any constant measure of success at? Am I trying for the unattainable and the “holy grail of blackjack” does not actually exist??? Is the monumental effort required much more than any significant advantage that can possibly be attained? Worse yet is the notion that maybe in a few more years of tedious detailed effort I finally gain what can be defined as true ability at this just about the time all casinos go to ASM’s!!! I have worked so hard to achieve so very little at this…it has been elusive and frustrating.

Tarzan
First I have to say I am not an expert in this AP strategy, but I have improved my ability to cut to the clump or to anticipate when the clump is about to come into play. I am also no math genius so calculating the advantage or approx count on the clump I am watching is not something I have worked on yet, but given some more time I will study up on the NRS formula.

I'm still working on eyeballing the center decks of the shoe to improve my clump tracking. Where I play they break the cutoffs into 4 stacks and randomly insert them into the discard stack so eyeballing middle shoe clumps and there movement by the inserts, is a must. If you watch closely you will see where some areas are not affected by the inserts, I have found this usual behavior by most dealers which provide the best results, this idea is also noted in Snyder's "The Cookbook". Concentrate on the 1st deck and last deck played since these are least affected, when the cutoffs are not topped. This initial plan may eliminate many good clumps which may develop within the shoe but your accuracy will be greater on these two sections.
Using CV Shuffle Track, mapping these sections, although it is not a perfect indicator, provides similar results.

BJC

 

[1357111317]

What about shuffle tracking for the sole purpose of cutting as many low cards behind the cutoff point? If someone could theoretically cut 6 low cards into the unplayed portion of the deck wouldn't you technically be playing a break even game?

 

[Tarzan]

Low cards in back

Cutting in such a way to place that huge string of 2-5's to the back of the shoe makes sense too and serves the same purpose... just a matter of being able to do it... consistently... at least with some measurable degree of success, so much easier said than done, though. Armed with a stack of multi-colored "post-it" notes and shuffling away, I fight the good fight striving toward the holy grail...

 

[iCountNTrack]

Can you substantiate what CountNTrack has to say (Obviously he does not play in Atlantic City as I have never seen them simply place the remainder of the shoe on the top of the discard rack and them begin the shuffle, they always as part of the standard house shuffle split the cards up into 3 "plugs" inserted in somewhat even distribution)? .

If I were you I would read my post more carefully, at no point did i mention that the dealer places the unplayed cards on top of the cards in the discard tray. Besides I did mention that REPRODUCIBILITY of the shuffle is really important if you want to generate formulas to map a shuffle, you also would need rather weak shuffles so that the formula is not 3 lines long.

ST requires finesse it is more of a subtle art, you can get a robot to count but he definitely wont be able to shuffle track.

 

[bjcount]

What about shuffle tracking for the sole purpose of cutting as many low cards behind the cutoff point? If someone could theoretically cut 6 low cards into the unplayed portion of the deck wouldn't you technically be playing a break even game?

Forgiving the math portion of the equation, why not use your energy on finding the high card clumps? Then again if you are a "wonger" then you probably would never use ST since the clumps of high cards would probably bring a negative TC which would cause you to be walking away from the table immediately after the clump you want to follow in the next shoe.

So I can see why you would cut out a cluster of low cards but 6 cards, just a guess of course, if your playing 4.5/6d probably wouldn't help you too much. Your advantage is to cut to the high card clumps and betting into it. Knowing that Aces are in your tracked clump will give you a larger advantage then following those 6 low cards. (my hypothesis, but it would be appreciated if any math guys want to follow up with a calculated conclusion)

BJC

 

[1357111317]

Forgiving the math portion of the equation, why not use your energy on finding the high card clumps? Then again if you are a "wonger" then you probably would never use ST since the clumps of high cards would probably bring a negative TC which would cause you to be walking away from the table immediately after the clump you want to follow in the next shoe.

So I can see why you would cut out a cluster of low cards but 6 cards, just a guess of course, if your playing 4.5/6d probably wouldn't help you too much. Your advantage is to cut to the high card clumps and betting into it. Knowing that Aces are in your tracked clump will give you a larger advantage then following those 6 low cards. (my hypothesis, but it would be appreciated if any math guys want to follow up with a calculated conclusion)

BJC

Well ideally I will do both of those things. I was just wondering which is more important? Cut the good cards to the front of the deck ( So you bet high off the top of the shoe and they dont' think you are counting) or cut all the bad cards to the back of the shoe.

On another note if half the unplayed cards are put on top of the discard pile and half are placed on the bottom would that allow for some shuffle tracking?

 

[UK-21]

This is a pertinent thread for me. It's clear, having put in the spadework, that I'll only ever be able to achieve a worthwhile edge playing the ENHC-UK game if I combine traditional counting with the extra advantage of ST. In the games I have played, the shuffling up procedure seemed weak and fairly easily exploitable for anyone having done some practice.

There seems to be three ways of tackling this though:

(a) Cut-off tracking approach - easy to achieve unless the dealer breaks up the cut-off segment into several smaller blocks and inserts these into the cards in the discard. Pretty easy to achieve as the target for the 6 deckers I play is generally one and a half to two decks.

(b) Opportunist approach - wait until a round serves up a big chunk of 10/As and then keep an eye on this slug (I've been practising with a slug of 17 Aces, with a margin of error in cutting varying from 3-15 cards at the moment. Still working on it!).

(c) Individual deck/half deck count approach - keeping the count of individual decks or half decks, identifying those that have a high number of 10/As and endeavouring to move these to where you want them. The most difficult, as the small amount of practice I've put in so far shows it to be a lot of additional hard work and where adjacent decks/half decks have a shortage of high cards the advantage is diluted away with even the simplest of shuffles.

Apologies if anyone finds the above tediously obvious, but I haven't yet seen anything in writing that sums up ST in three paragraphs - most of what I have read is long, seems overly complicated and goes to reinforce the myth that shuffle tracking will only pay dividends for the chosen few.


A few things fall out of it:

If the majority of a cut off deck block containing, say, 9 additional low cards can again be cut out of play again , this effectively renders a 6 deck shoe as an even game to start with and playing all will have less of an effect on the overall EV.

Engineering a slug of say 12 x 10/As to the front of a deck, even if they're diluted down to be be part of a single deck segment will on average give a 5% or more player advantage off the top of a new shoe. No way that'll happen with counting alone.

It doesn't really have to be as complicated as it's frequently made out to be. In actual fact there's no reason why it shouldn't be a natural progression for anyone who has become reasonably proficient in counting the cards and applying the advantage that it brings in a disciplined fashion.

As someone has already alluded to, in the UK shuffles are weak (certainly in the games I've played they didn't seem unduly complicated) - probably in order to save time - and so there's no reason not to go there if ones already taken the trouble to learn to count. I have heard that shuffling skills amongst some dealers are frequently so poor that when the CSM conks out they struggle to do it by hand. Good-oh . . . .

Thank you all for indulging my ramble. It has helped to put my thoughts in perspective. Please comment constructively.

 

[Sonny]

I was just wondering which is more important? Cut the good cards to the front of the deck...or cut all the bad cards to the back of the shoe.

Cutting the small cards out of play is easier in terms of TC calculations, but cutting the high cards to the front will give you a bigger advantage. If you’re only tracking one or two segments then you’ll probably just have to cut whatever cards are dealt to that segment so you'll be doing a little of both.

On another note if half the unplayed cards are put on top of the discard pile and half are placed on the bottom would that allow for some shuffle tracking?

Sure, but it will probably take more skill.

-Sonny-

 

[Tarzan]

OOps!

You're right, CouintNTrack... I recalled reading that and in looking back I see that it was not you, but 1357111317 that said that after quoting part of your post (So... uhm... what casino does 135111317 play at in which they do not "plug" remaining cards into the discard rack before the shuffle)? I was recalling what I had read without looking back at it to verify the author, sorry (post no#19).

I will continue to try and get someplace with this thing (clump tracking / shuffle tracking) and see if it ever pans out to anything, since it is apparently possible.

 

[callipygian]

if you are a "wonger" then you probably would never use ST since the clumps of high cards would probably bring a negative TC which would cause you to be walking away from the table immediately after the clump you want to follow in the next shoe

Actually, your reasoning is spot on but your conclusions are exactly opposite - because a Wonger would otherwise be walking away, shuffle tracking is MORE valuable to a Wonger than to someone who is playing all.

Someone above you pointed out that shuffle tracking works best at the beginning and the end of the discard tray. For a Wonger, normally they would leave at the end of the shoe - shuffle tracking allows them to double dip each trip in. If there's no good slug (negative or positive) to track, getting up and leaving is always an option.

I was just wondering which is more important? Cut the good cards to the front of the deck ( So you bet high off the top of the shoe and they dont' think you are counting) or cut all the bad cards to the back of the shoe.

It doesn't matter which one is more important. The likelihood of both options being viable at the same time is exceedingly small, so your options are generally (cut high to front or cut randomly) OR (cut low to back or cut randomly).

(b) Opportunist approach - wait until a round serves up a big chunk of 10/As and then keep an eye on this slug (I've been practising with a slug of 17 Aces, with a margin of error in cutting varying from 3-15 cards at the moment. Still working on it!).

Based on my simulations, this is the only approach that's viable, unless you find an extremely weak shuffle.

As a matter of fact, I believe (but have not tested the hypothesis) that shuffle tracking just one slug is completely futile - you need to track 4 slugs, and then get 2 to match.

 

[rukus]

As a matter of fact, I believe (but have not tested the hypothesis) that shuffle tracking just one slug is completely futile - you need to track 4 slugs, and then get 2 to match.

disagree here. one slug is fine. yes it will on average be diluted, but if the slug is particularly dense in 10s/As, you are still fine and playing at a large advantage for that playzone.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

I was thinking of betting 1 extra unit per two true count ( ie 2 units for plus 2, 3 for plus 4 etc).

FYI you arnt going to see very many hands at counts in the +5 +6 and beyond range, i recomend that you dish max bets out on the table by +4

Your ST plan of attack seems that it could be very efficient, however i beleive that it will not work correctly unless the dealer happens to break the piles exactly as you want him to, this may happen with one particular dealer, but many times tables are full, or the table you want to sit at is in the middle of the shoe. Most fo the time you just grab the table that just finishing the shuffle and has an open seat which is hard enough as is.

When i follow shuffles, i just look for a cluster of valuable cards, calulate its EV, then follow it through the shuffle and dilute its EV with other cards, then i put it to the top of the pack with the cut cards, its way simpler than clockwork chips and all the thinking is done during the shuffle not during the game putting less strain on your brains processing power. Also when you manipulate the cards in this manor you put out huge bets on the first hands of the shoe which is very non card counterish.

In your shoes, since you say you are still learning the mechanics of the whole card counting advantage play scheme, i would detur yourself from such complicated ST systems and just count cards for the first couple months of playing so that you can absorb the environment.

 

[Ferretnparrot]

What about shuffle tracking for the sole purpose of cutting as many low cards behind the cutoff point? If someone could theoretically cut 6 low cards into the unplayed portion of the deck wouldn't you technically be playing a break even game?

Yeah, when i do this i start the initial count according to the value of the cards i put behind the cut card since they are effectively removed from the game, take a look at the shoe when the dealer switch out and put the shoe sideways in the center of the table, sitting at first base, or when you are standing up you can often see several cards behind the cut card.

 

[1357111317]

FYI you arnt going to see very many hands at counts in the +5 +6 and beyond range, i recomend that you dish max bets out on the table by +4

Your ST plan of attack seems that it could be very efficient, however i beleive that it will not work correctly unless the dealer happens to break the piles exactly as you want him to, this may happen with one particular dealer, but many times tables are full, or the table you want to sit at is in the middle of the shoe. Most fo the time you just grab the table that just finishing the shuffle and has an open seat which is hard enough as is.

When i follow shuffles, i just look for a cluster of valuable cards, calulate its EV, then follow it through the shuffle and dilute its EV with other cards, then i put it to the top of the pack with the cut cards, its way simpler than clockwork chips and all the thinking is done during the shuffle not during the game putting less strain on your brains processing power. Also when you manipulate the cards in this manor you put out huge bets on the first hands of the shoe which is very non card counterish.

In your shoes, since you say you are still learning the mechanics of the whole card counting advantage play scheme, i would detur yourself from such complicated ST systems and just count cards for the first couple months of playing so that you can absorb the environment.

You would actually be surprised at how accurate the dealers are. They will make sure that they split the cards in two and if its not within one or two cards they will try it again. Even with the piles, they will try two or three times until they get it right. I went to the casino and tried this method for the first time the other day and I would say it worked pretty well. If you have a deck at -4 it would never be positive and it would never be more than -8. Now this was with a decent dealer so it might not always be the case but for the most part it was pretty close. I am excited about this method because one big advantage of it over card counting is that on pretty much every single shoe you will have a deck that is -6 or lower due to the fact that each of the 6 decks have to add up to 0. Will post more results and observations on how it works in the future.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

You would actually be surprised at how accurate the dealers are. They will make sure that they split the cards in two and if its not within one or two cards they will try it again. Even with the piles, they will try two or three times until they get it right. I went to the casino and tried this method for the first time the other day and I would say it worked pretty well. If you have a deck at -4 it would never be positive and it would never be more than -8. Now this was with a decent dealer so it might not always be the case but for the most part it was pretty close. I am excited about this method because one big advantage of it over card counting is that on pretty much every single shoe you will have a deck that is -6 or lower due to the fact that each of the 6 decks have to add up to 0. Will post more results and observations on how it works in the future.

I would guess that accuracy is something that varies by store? But you're right, I also often see dealers retry if they feel they didn't do it perfectly. They always divide the shoe nearly perfectly at the places that do a zone shuffle.