Continuous shuffle

[tedloc]

Just finished reading this article by renzy... http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/bet-you-didnt-know-this-about-blackjack-1040 In it he states:It's not a very big edge, but you were a 101-100 underdog going in before any cards were dealt. Furthermore, on the majority of hands you receive you'll remain an underdog. So when you've had the good fortune to be dealt a hand on which you have the lead, you've gotta go for it!
My question is: Since the casino edge is only .5% with the first hand out of the shoe, why is it not advantageous to play on a game where they use the continuous shuffle? Especially if you are not a card counter.

 

[Mikeaber]

Just finished reading this article by renzy... http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/article/bet-you-didnt-know-this-about-blackjack-1040 In it he states:It's not a very big edge, but you were a 101-100 underdog going in before any cards were dealt. Furthermore, on the majority of hands you receive you'll remain an underdog. So when you've had the good fortune to be dealt a hand on which you have the lead, you've gotta go for it!
My question is: Since the casino edge is only .5% with the first hand out of the shoe, why is it not advantageous to play on a game where they use the continuous shuffle? Especially if you are not a card counter.

Wizard of Odds does claim a very slightly less of a house advantage with CSM than with hand or machine shuffle IF you are no an advantage player. I've personally never played on a table using CSM.

And your .5% odds on the first hand (or any hand) is actually 44%-win 48%-loss and 8%-push.....not assuming deck composition of course.