Csm"s

[tedloc]

The other day I played a local Indian casino. It was mobbed and the only game I could get was on a table with a CSM. 5decks,DAS,H17, surrender. On this particular machine, the last hand played is not included in the shuffle. The table was full, so each last hand had a minumum of 20 cards. After playing for a while, I noticed that,if the last hand had a high or low count, that I could alter BS on some of the close hands (12 vs.dealer 4, 13 vs. dealer 2, etc) This turned out to be a real plus. Take 10 or more, large or small cards out of five decks and BS changes on those 50/50 hands.

Whats your take on this???

 

[noshoes]

I believe this is called "latency of redistribution." It was described by John May in his book "Get the Edge at Blackjack." In CSM games it's standard practice to hold on to a round of cards in order to settle disputes about payoff. If you counted those cards you would know the count of the cards remaining in the machine and you could play accordingly for the next round. Back in the day it was much more profitable since the machines had a flaw. Once the cards were placed back in the machines the shuffling didn't redistribute the cards in a way that would affect what would come out on the next round. In effect you could assume that for at least 2 rounds, one round where the cards were held and one round were the cards weren't redistributed, that the count would remain stable and you could play (and concievably bet) according to the count. Today it's a much harder thing to do since the manufacturers figured out this flaw and corrected it. You can still do it (since they still hold the cards for a round) but it's much harder. Even on a full table, I think it wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

[ZMan]

CSM vs SHOE for the Non-Counter

Is there any disadvantage to the CSM vs. a 6 or 8 deck shoe if I am only playing using Basic Strategy and not using any card counting method? I have BS down very well and have a BS card right in front of me when I play for a quick reference.

I just played at Sterling Casino Cruise Lines in FL. They had CSM, 3:2, DOA, DAS, and dealer stands on 17. I think the 6 or 8 deck shoe games had the same rules.

Actually, I think I LIKED the CSM games better, since you don't have to wait on the shuffles. Although, I guess that delay could save you some money - if you're worried about that you probably shouldn't be gambling anyway. The tables were full, 7 players to every table.

 

[KenSmith]

You've identified the only disadvantage with CSMs for a basic strategy player. You'll play more hands per hour and that means a bigger expected loss. Other than that, there's no substantial difference. There actually is a small difference that helps the player, due to the elimination of the 'cut-card effect'. That effect is very small though.

 

[tedloc]

Is there any disadvantage to the CSM vs. a 6 or 8 deck shoe if I am only playing using Basic Strategy and not using any card counting method? I have BS down very well and have a BS card right in front of me when I play for a quick reference.

I know some disagree with me but I believe that if you are not a card counter, the CSM is the best game for you. The reason is: Basic strategy is base on only 3 cards out of the deck (your two and the dealer up card). Therefore, it is only in a fresh deck of cards that basic strategy is 100% accurate. A CSM machine is close to a fresh deck on each play. After those first three cards, strategy changes depending on the count. If the next 10 cards out are low cards, you probably wont hit your 16 vs. dealer 8

 

[tedloc]

I believe this is called "latency of redistribution." It was described by John May in his book "Get the Edge at Blackjack." In CSM games it's standard practice to hold on to a round of cards in order to settle disputes about payoff. If you counted those cards you would know the count of the cards remaining in the machine and you could play accordingly for the next round. Back in the day it was much more profitable since the machines had a flaw. Once the cards were placed back in the machines the shuffling didn't redistribute the cards in a way that would affect what would come out on the next round. In effect you could assume that for at least 2 rounds, one round where the cards were held and one round were the cards weren't redistributed, that the count would remain stable and you could play (and concievably bet) according to the count. Today it's a much harder thing to do since the manufacturers figured out this flaw and corrected it. You can still do it (since they still hold the cards for a round) but it's much harder. Even on a full table, I think it wouldn't be worthwhile.

As a point of reference, I was not intending to use the count to raise my BET. I felt that by taking 10 or more high cards out of the shoe, my hitting 12 vs. dealer 4 was now a much better play. Also by taking 10 or more low cards out, doubling A/8 vs 5 was a better bet.

 

[E-town-guy]

I assume you know this but changing your playing decisions based on the count but not changing your bet still leaves you as an overall loser.

 

[SystemsTrader]

I know this is not going to happen but I wish all blackjack players would stop playing against CSM's. This would send the message to casinos and they would stop using them. Unfortunately most casual players have no clue what one even is. At least people on this board should stop. Where's BJStanko when we need him?
No CSMs
No 6to5 blackjack
No progressions

 

[noshoes]

We balk at things like 6:5 blackjack and CSMs but really they are just the casino responding to the things that we throw at them. Hole card playing seems to be on the line of cheating yet there are people who do it. There is no law that says you can't play to a casino's weakness but in the same respect, CSM's and 6:5 blackjack are just playing to the counters weakness. You can't blame them for doing the same thing to us that we are doing to them. You just evolve. CSMs and 6:5 blackjack aren't the end of the card counter. They are just the signal that tells us that we need to get better.

In all honesty, I believe the same thing you do. I wish they would go away too. Eventually we might have to accept that they aren't going away and either evolve or move on.

 

[nc-tom]

I know this is not going to happen but I wish all blackjack players would stop playing against CSM's. This would send the message to casinos and they would stop using them. Unfortunately most casual players have no clue what one even is. At least people on this board should stop. Where's BJStanko when we need him?
No CSMs
No 6to5 blackjack
No progressions

Boy I am with you ST. Maybe we can get all the non counters to play only these pittiful games and it will open up more tables with less players at them for the rest of us.If I have to evolve to learn to play these poor games I will stop playing.

 

[noshoes]

I never said it would be easy. But, alas, what worthwhile thing in life is ever easy.

 

[MadMax]

I'm not sure that casinos work with the same idea of supply and demand. They change the rules to stop us, yet we only attract more "bad" players to blackjack and take only a pebble from their mountain.

Surely there is a way to get them to abandon such poor rules. Maybe a "book" needs to be written with new data, wrong data, that pushes the casinos in the direction we want them to move in. Of course we would need to know what direction that is, and of course it couldn't be an obvious direction, but a direction that looks appealing to the casinos, but has a hidden "fatal" loophole.

I realize that this is good for intellectual discussion with little substantive value. But I'm on a crusade to bring a good game back.

Max

 

[Langstroth21]

If any of you write a book like that would you please tell me so that I dont buy it thinking its a good source of information. LOL
-Langstroth

 

[noshoes]

I hate to rain on the parade but here's what I think...

I see 2 conclusions.

1. We reach some sort of equillibrium with the casinos counter measures. IE. Our best effort will make the house edge 0%. Then blackjack becomes indisinguishable from all the other games (a gross oversimplification).
2. The Casino's counter measures eventually win, card counting is rendered obsolete, Vegas still ends up attracting millions of clueless cash hemoraging tourists and we all return to our 9-5 jobs never to think of it again.

I firmly believe in the equillibrium idea. It would be virtually indistinguishable from today's situation to the public. The advantage player would still be able to make money from the game though we wouldn't be able to count on it in the long run. One could argue that we are essentially there now.

Your thoughts...

 

[E-town-guy]

I hate to rain on the parade but here's what I think...

I see 2 conclusions.

1. We reach some sort of equillibrium with the casinos counter measures. IE. Our best effort will make the house edge 0%. Then blackjack becomes indisinguishable from all the other games (a gross oversimplification).
..

Don't all the other games have a house edge?

 

[noshoes]

which is why I stated it was a gross oversimplification. It really a dis-service dealt to the public when we say that blackjack has a .5% house edge when we know that they will only realize that number through perfect basic strategy play. A roulette game has a 5% (roughly) house advantage but you will never realize that if you are always betting 00.

 

[MadMax]

Neither of those conclusions will happen. While BJ is still the most popular casino game it will change very little. In the past what has made the rules change was the publication of revolutionary books. The casino is so afraid of changing a game in their favor, that it takes something really big to scare them. My proposition was to play into that fear, and lead them in our direction.

While single and double deck games still exist it will be a long time before csm's rule the felt.

Max

 

[Mikeaber]

Neither of those conclusions will happen. While BJ is still the most popular casino game it will change very little. In the past what has made the rules change was the publication of revolutionary books. The casino is so afraid of changing a game in their favor, that it takes something really big to scare them. My proposition was to play into that fear, and lead them in our direction.

While single and double deck games still exist it will be a long time before csm's rule the felt.

Max

While I agree (if I understand the sentiment of this discussion) that it would be nice to put a halt to degredation of the rules of Blackjack, I really do not think we as the opposition to the casinos are going to carry a lot of weight in influencing the Casino Management to accomodate our desires. In truth, I sort of believe that the casinos would like to see the contraversial game of Blackjack (contraversial in terms of income to the casino) just fade away. If you think about it in terms of their perspective, Blackjack is a "lose leader" to get people into the casino to play other games that are more favorable to the casino!

As for CSMs not gaining in strength....I'm not seeing that at all. In fact, in the worst game in the world (Oklahoma) I'm seeing more and more CSMs, especially at the low limit tables. Give them a little time and they I think, will be more common than Shuffle Master at the BJ tables.

Just my opinion though based on observations.

 

[MadMax]

I'm not so sure that BJ is such a losing proposition for the casinos. If played perfectly wrong it yields the highest profits for the casinos. You can't play a game like roulette wrong, there is no decision to make. But in blackjack where the entire game is composed of decisions, it can be played to nearly absolute failure. You could theoretically lose everytime except when you have a natural and the dealer doesn't, every other hand can be busted, and some places I guess would let you bust a natural if you just really wanted to.

For every one person that knows and plays perfect BS there are a hundred more that don't.

Max

 

[TENNBEAR]

My two bits

For every one person that knows and plays perfect BS there are a hundred more that don't.

I agree with MadMax, I feel there are so few independant Advantage players that the casinos do not even consider us a threat. You only need to set around a red chip table and watch the others play to see how BJ makes the casinos a lot of money. If you are playing perfect basic strategy that puts you in the top 25% of BJ players at any given time. It is because the average BJ player is so bad that the rules are loose enough to allow the advantage player to exist. Many of the rules are to prevent team play, and backcounting, however the independant card counter is not a threat to the casinos bottom line. The CSM machines are a certain threat to the card counter, but I think the intent is to play more hands per hour to increase profits. I see more one and two deck games with lower minimum limits than a year ago, they would not be available if the counters were hurting them.