Cutting out a low slug...

[Automatic Monkey]

That's why you use the NRS formula - as it accurately estimates your average advantage given all possible packet compositions. But ho hum we've discussed all of this before.
What a total ****ing tool you are!
RJT.

Yes I am aware of what it does, but it is not always better to settle for an estimate of an average when the other option is seeing the cards come out and knowing your exact advantage.

To elaborate further, the shuffles available to me are not appropriate for finding an advantage with shuffle tracking and cut card control alone. At the same time, I prefer to miss as many hands in the beginning of a shoe as possible, for the usual reason. If I'm going to do that, I prefer to see low cards dealt out.

 

[Sonny]

if all of the above are true, you can begin the new shoe with a running count of +10 and add a half deck to whatever you see in the discard tray. in other words, you know that 10 bad cards are out of play, and you have seen the equivalent of 26 cards already.

That's exactly how I would handle it. You have cut 26 known cards out of play, which is similar to having them in the discard tray. They have been counted and will not be dealt again. The cards that they were mixed with are unknown so you treat them as uncounted cards still in the shoe. Even though they are behind the cut card you cannot remove them from your TC divisor because they are unknown and they still affect the ratio of low:high cards. If you ignore the uncounted cutoffs then you would always start the game above (4D game with 1D cut off) with a divisor of 3, which is incorrect.

As a simplified example, imagine that a clueless break-in dealer accidentally started dealing from the back of the shoe by accident. She deals 26 cards before realizing her mistake, at which point she prepares to deal from the top of the shoe. You have an RC for those 26 cards and there are 3.5 decks left in play. You can't ignore those 26 unknown cards still behind the cut card, although you should thank her for increasing the penetration of the game by dealing the cutoffs! :gaga:

-Sonny-

 

[MAZ]

Another option, cut them up to the front of the shoe and watch them come out with little or no money on the table. You know what to do after that.

You have also turned a prime advantage gained from an undetectable technique as far as counting detection, into a typical raise your bet with an obvious countable advantage scenario. Why risk acting like a straight counter when what you are doing is far better. The benefits of tracking are not only higher advantages, but great cover away from standard counting procedure. Your method of handling it is is typical for beginners who lack the confidence and or skill to pull it off optimally. Not a good idea at all. If you have found a trackable game, don't blow it by acting like a counter. If your not confident in your tracking abilities, leave em at the kitchen table until you can play them right.

 

[creeping panther]

Maz

You have also turned a prime advantage gained from an undetectable technique as far as counting detection, into a typical raise your bet with an obvious countable advantage scenario. Why risk acting like a straight counter when what you are doing is far better. The benefits of tracking are not only higher advantages, but great cover away from standard counting procedure. Your method of handling it is is typical for beginners who lack the confidence and or skill to pull it off optimally. Not a good idea at all. If you have found a trackable game, don't blow it by acting like a counter. If your not confident in your tracking abilities, leave em at the kitchen table until you can play them right.

Maz,
Thanks for chiming in on this subject, I know there are few out playing today who have skillz in this area that can rival yours.

CP

 

[Automatic Monkey]

You have also turned a prime advantage gained from an undetectable technique as far as counting detection, into a typical raise your bet with an obvious countable advantage scenario. Why risk acting like a straight counter when what you are doing is far better. The benefits of tracking are not only higher advantages, but great cover away from standard counting procedure. Your method of handling it is is typical for beginners who lack the confidence and or skill to pull it off optimally. Not a good idea at all. If you have found a trackable game, don't blow it by acting like a counter. If your not confident in your tracking abilities, leave em at the kitchen table until you can play them right.

All of this is dependent on finding a shuffle that will allow you to identify or generate an advantage with shuffle tracking alone. Good luck with that part. With the shuffles I play regularly, rare are the opportunities where you can generate even +1 TC with the cut card, using a non-computerized tracking technique. This I know because I wrote the software to do it with a computer. :eyepatch:

Thus if you cannot get an advantage with the tracking alone, there is no other option (for that shuffle) than to use tracking to augment counting.

 

[MAZ]

All of this is dependent on finding a shuffle that will allow you to identify or generate an advantage with shuffle tracking alone. Good luck with that part. With the shuffles I play regularly, rare are the opportunities where you can generate even +1 TC with the cut card, using a non-computerized tracking technique. This I know because I wrote the software to do it with a computer. :eyepatch:

Thus if you cannot get an advantage with the tracking alone, there is no other option (for that shuffle) than to use tracking to augment counting.

Nobody was talking about your specific game, nor did you reference it as such when giving your off base opinion about playing the low slug. As to your feeble backtrack on the subject, who the hell cares about shuffles that are not trackable(to you anyway). If you can't track a slug, don't make believe that you can do anything else with it. Thats where those that can't do get hurt. If you are not sure of strength or location of what you are tracking, do not play it as if its anything but straight counting. But that wasn't the issue here in this thread. There is no need to give anybody with weak tracking skills an excuse to think they can still play a tracking technique.

Here is some real good advice to all wannabe trackers. If you have problems with tracking such as Monkey here, DO NOT attempt to track anything until you either get more skilled or travel to games easier to track. With such a high variance technique, any other advice contrary would be detrimental to your game. You may need luck at times in this game, just don't get in the habit of friggin depending on it.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Nobody was talking about your specific game, nor did you reference it as such when giving your off base opinion about playing the low slug. As to your feeble backtrack on the subject, who the hell cares about shuffles that are not trackable(to you anyway). If you can't track a slug, don't make believe that you can do anything else with it. Thats where those that can't do get hurt. If you are not sure of strength or location of what you are tracking, do not play it as if its anything but straight counting. But that wasn't the issue here in this thread. There is no need to give anybody with weak tracking skills an excuse to think they can still play a tracking technique.

Here is some real good advice to all wannabe trackers. If you have problems with tracking such as Monkey here, DO NOT attempt to track anything until you either get more skilled or travel to games easier to track. With such a high variance technique, any other advice contrary would be detrimental to your game. You may need luck at times in this game, just don't get in the habit of friggin depending on it.

All your ridiculous bloviation aside, I hope you are acknowledging that different shuffles and games are vulnerable to different methods. While tracking methods alone can be used in a few situations that are often temporary, tracking as an adjunct to counting can be used on a majority of hand-shuffled shoe games to boost advantage significantly, with no downside.

 

[iCountNTrack]

Well i am going to play to be the district/defense attorney in here

AM, I agree with MAZ that what are talking about as far as different rules or trackable shuffles shuffles is not really relevant to the original point of discussion, you have brought a good point before as far as cutting the poor slug into play instead of out of play, in case one doesnt know the actual count of slugs or not familiar with NRS formulation.
I find this to be a very elegant method: lets say one has no experience with shuffle tracking, and he happened to notice a slug rich in low cards he tracked it through the shuffle, he decides to cut it to the front, and bet the minimum in the beginning . Besides cover considerations, this method is actually a safe pseudo tracking method for generating positive TCs since you will be actually counting the cards and verifying if you had done the cut correctly.
Please note that this will only work for poor slugs but not for rich slugs since counting rich slugs as they are dealt does not really help

Now as MAZ was saying this is not the best method if you are serious about tracking because you are giving up a lot of information about the upcoming slug. So if you are serious about shuffle tracking you should practice hard, learn how to count slugs and apply NRS theory for betting and playing decisions while you are in the playzone

 

[psyduck]

I have a question for you guys.

Why do some casinos still use hand shuffle instead of ASMs? Don't they realize that hand shuffle slows down the game and may make the game trackable?

 

[21forme]

Many players (ploppies) prefer hand shuffles. The higher the limits, the less likely you are to find ASMs (or CSMs). In a large casino, cost isn't an issue, but in small, low limit casinos, the $500/mo rental fee could cut into profits more than a slow shuffle.

 

[creeping panther]

psy

I have a question for you guys.

Why do some casinos still use hand shuffle instead of ASMs? Don't they realize that hand shuffle slows down the game and may make the game trackable?

At one of the very smart casinos I frequent they got rid of all ASM and went to a shuffle that takes from 36 to 48 seconds, and they cut off .5. So they get great HPH and no ASM fee and the players are very happy

CP

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Well i am going to play to be the district/defense attorney in here

AM, I agree with MAZ that what are talking about as far as different rules or trackable shuffles shuffles is not really relevant to the original point of discussion, you have brought a good point before as far as cutting the poor slug into play instead of out of play, in case one doesnt know the actual count of slugs or not familiar with NRS formulation.
I find this to be a very elegant method: lets say one has no experience with shuffle tracking, and he happened to notice a slug rich in low cards he tracked it through the shuffle, he decides to cut it to the front, and bet the minimum in the beginning . Besides cover considerations, this method is actually a safe pseudo tracking method for generating positive TCs since you will be actually counting the cards and verifying if you had done the cut correctly.
Please note that this will only work for poor slugs but not for rich slugs since counting rich slugs as they are dealt does not really help

Now as MAZ was saying this is not the best method if you are serious about tracking because you are giving up a lot of information about the upcoming slug. So if you are serious about shuffle tracking you should practice hard, learn how to count slugs and apply NRS theory for betting and playing decisions while you are in the playzone

At the risk of being banned from this site for disagreeing, I am exhaustively familiar with NRS theory and knowing its limitations, would never use it for a serious attempt to beat a game with shuffle tracking. I prefer a first-order Bayesian approach. Higher order Bayesian models require a computer, at least for me, but I suspect someone else here might be so brilliant they could run a second-order Bayesian model and transliterate Akkadian cuneiform at the same time.

Being with most shuffles it is an utter waste of effort to attack them with shuffle tracking alone, a smart player uses only the AP methods or combination of methods that will be most efficient. I'm not doing NRS to give myself a 0.5% game when I can use an almost effortless method to turn a 1.2% counting game into a 1.3% counting game.

And being AP's do not discuss shuffles in public, no specific examples can be given here thus the conversation approaches pointlessness.

 

[creeping panther]

Am

At the risk of being banned from this site for disagreeing, I am exhaustively familiar with NRS theory and knowing its limitations, would never use it for a serious attempt to beat a game with shuffle tracking. I prefer a first-order Bayesian approach. Higher order Bayesian models require a computer, at least for me, but I suspect someone else here might be so brilliant they could run a second-order Bayesian model and transliterate Akkadian cuneiform at the same time.

Being with most shuffles it is an utter waste of effort to attack them with shuffle tracking alone, a smart player uses only the AP methods or combination of methods that will be most efficient. I'm not doing NRS to give myself a 0.5% game when I can use an almost effortless method to turn a 1.2% counting game into a 1.3% counting game.

And being AP's do not discuss shuffles in public, no specific examples can be given here thus the conversation approaches pointlessness.

You are getting pissed, don't.

Have a nice Christmas and relax.

CP

 

[iCountNTrack]

At the risk of being banned from this site for disagreeing, I am exhaustively familiar with NRS theory and knowing its limitations, would never use it for a serious attempt to beat a game with shuffle tracking. I prefer a first-order Bayesian approach. Higher order Bayesian models require a computer, at least for me, but I suspect someone else here might be so brilliant they could run a second-order Bayesian model and transliterate Akkadian cuneiform at the same time.

Being with most shuffles it is an utter waste of effort to attack them with shuffle tracking alone, a smart player uses only the AP methods or combination of methods that will be most efficient. I'm not doing NRS to give myself a 0.5% game when I can use an almost effortless method to turn a 1.2% counting game into a 1.3% counting game.

And being AP's do not discuss shuffles in public, no specific examples can be given here thus the conversation approaches pointlessness.

I have no energy nor the desire to get into a discussion over this, but i feel compelled to clarify a few points:

First of all, to keep the record straight, you will never get banned for disagreeing with someone, but you do get banned, for trolling, repetitive flaming, insulting, spamming.. and this usually comes after a warning.

Second, you are projecting this image of the NRS equation as if it was some second order differential equation that needs to be solved at the table, while it is merely an equation of the format (x-y)/(w-z), The notion that NRS is impractical is an urban legend. NRS is really quite simple in its application. A simple calculation to arrive at the initial running count (IRC) (using a memorized multiplier - how is this any harder than calculating the off-the-top TC?), a memorized effective shoe size, and the player is free to count as normal. It's really not much different to regular counting.

Besides providing intrinsic cover opportunities, it is actually quite profitable, providing for instance an 150% increase in SCORE,

Picture stolen from bjincolor.com

As CP is saying you are taking this too personally need to calm down a little bit and enjoy the holidays

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I have no energy nor the desire to get into a discussion over this, but i feel compelled to clarify a few points:

First of all, to keep the record straight, you will never get banned for disagreeing with someone, but you do get banned, for trolling, repetitive flaming, insulting, spamming.. and this usually comes after a warning.

Second, you are projecting this image of the NRS equation as if it was some second order differential equation that needs to be solved at the table, while it is merely an equation of the format (x-y)/(w-z), The notion that NRS is impractical is an urban legend. NRS is really quite simple in its application. A simple calculation to arrive at the initial running count (IRC) (using a memorized multiplier - how is this any harder than calculating the off-the-top TC?), a memorized effective shoe size, and the player is free to count as normal. It's really not much different to regular counting.

Besides providing intrinsic cover opportunities, it is actually quite profitable, providing for instance an 150% increase in SCORE,

Picture stolen from bjincolor.com

As CP is saying you are taking this too personally need to calm down a little bit and enjoy the holidays

OK I'm calm.

Are you leaving out a little detail when you cite a 150% SCORE increase using NRS? The last shuffle that I have access to where you could even consider using straight NRS died about 3 years ago.

When you use a Bayesian approach, you are using data acquired from early parts of the daughter shoe to alter the parameters of the later parts. As a verbal example- let's say a slug of high cards is predicted as equally likely to come out in deck 1 or deck 5. If they don't come out in deck 1, that means 1) they are more likely than before to come out in deck 5, or 2) you are fubared, or 3) the shuffle was fubared, or 4) they actually did come out in deck 1, but were so diluted by an improbable distribution of low cards that you didn't notice. When you take the Bayesian model to a higher level, the information that comes out in, say, deck 3 will modify what you saw in deck 1 for an even clearer picture of deck 5. You can see how this can quickly lead to the need for a computer if you try to take it too far. Being nearly all the shuffles around me involve *********** you need to account for an equal possibility of a tracked segment being in two or four very different places if you want to track them with any reliability. On the first order you can do this with coefficients not all that much more difficult than NRS.

The practice of cutting low cards to the front rather than behind the cut card (assuming you know where the cut card is going to be, you don't always know that!) allows you to get information on the daughter shoe faster. Obviously you don't want to cut high cards right to the front, unless you want that information to be "You don't have an advantage for this shoe." If I'm simply cutting some low cards to the front it works like a zeroth-order Bayesian, either the low cards came out or they didn't. If they did, I enjoy the good count, if they didn't I don't. Conversely, high cards get cut to the third quarter of the shoe so that they come out if and when a good count has been observed, and neither early in the shoe nor behind the cut card.

What triggered me before are words to the effect of "Well if you were good enough at shuffle tracking, you'd be sure." Not on these shuffles- they are very unstable and designed to be so, specifically for the purpose of foiling shuffle trackers, and they will foil a shuffle tracker with delusions of superhumanity who isn't willing to mathematically account for the possibility that what he believes may not be so.

 

[apex]

let's say you are sure, and that you saw 26 cards with a count of +10, and that those 26 cards got mixed with some other **** during the shuffle but that you still knew exactly where all 26 of them were -- eg, that they were all definitely included in what is now a 52-card packet comprised of your original slug and some unknown stuff -- and that your eye is good and your hand-eye coordination good and you definitely put all 26 of those cards at the back of the shoe.

if all of the above are true, you can begin the new shoe with a running count of +10 and add a half deck to whatever you see in the discard tray. in other words, you know that 10 bad cards are out of play, and you have seen the equivalent of 26 cards already.

I agree with Josh and Sonny on this. If you have observed and counted 26 cards that are out of play they might as well be in the discard tray, so starting with a running count of +10 and adding a half deck in the discard tray for your TC calculations seems right in this situation.


Automatic Monkey tooks some shots for posting this:

Another option, cut them up to the front of the shoe and watch them come out with little or no money on the table. You know what to do after that.

Though not optimal, I think this is a good option for people learning to shuffle track (as I am.) If you do this over 10 shoes, you should get a good idea of how good you are at shuffle tracking and whether or not you want to add it to your game. Thats my plan of attack! Plus, if you are correct it provides the benefit of a high count shoe. I know I always cheer for babies to come out early so I can get those big bets out later!

 

[Blue Efficacy]

The only thing I really don't like about the cutting low cards to the front plan is you can't cut low cards to the front without sending some big cards to the back.