Is This Strategy Plausible?

[StudiodeKadent]

I am not sure if it is correct to post this in the card counting forum, but I will anyway.

I am visiting my usual gambling den at the end of this year. Basically, I want to know what the best thing to do, strategically speaking, is.

First, I will state that my bankroll is either 40 or 80 units. It depends on what the casino demands as the minimum bet for rated play. Last year, it was on the low setting one day, but on the high setting another. I don't know what it will be this year, but I will check with the casino player's club when I get there.

I am a basic strategy player. However, my usual casino has a CSM+1 deck discard tray situation which means the game is basically a shoe game with 1 deck penetration and somewhat faster shuffles (the dealer riffles and spreads the deck a few times across the table before the discard pack is placed back into the machine) Yes, this is terrible penetration, but the method makes the games not only slower, but the trials are dependent!

What I want to ask is whether or not some very basic, relatively crude strategies would improve my odds.

I have three options:

1: Play basic strategy and flat bet the minimum rateable bet.

2: Play basic strategy but adjust my bet according to one of the following strategies:
Option A: Use a modified Ace-Five count where I simply double (if the rated min is low) or increase by 50% (if the rated min is high) my bet during rounds with a positive count of +2 or greater

Option B: Use a very crude hi-lo variant where I compare the "cards-o-doom" (3, 4, 5, 6) to the pictures/tens on the table, and if the previous round had a lot of the cards-o-doom coming out (relative to tens/pictures), then increase my bet by 50% the next round (and if the next round still has lots of cards-o-doom coming out, ramp it up to 200% of my minimum bet). If its "low bets to be rated" than I'd ramp 100%-200%-300% respectively, but the basic trick is still the same.

I have been practicing both strategies. Luckily both are simple so I can actually do them.

My question to the forum members is:

Given the rules (6D, S17, DA2, DAS, ES10, Split4, RSA, HE: 0.1%, Pen: 1 deck dealt before reshuffle), a bankroll of 40 or 80 units (depending on the minimum bet to get rated...), and a bet spread of 1 to 1.5 to 2 (if its higher bets to be rated) or 1 to 2 to 3 (if its lower bets), what is the best thing to do?

Should I use option 1 and just flat bet the minimum needed to get rated? (and if so, I guess it would be advisable to only play when the smaller minimum bet is needed to get rated?). Or would option 2 be in my interests? If so, would strategy A or B be better? (Personally I'm more comfortable with B but I want your input on this).

And finally, and most importantly...
"Would a low-rolling player with a bet spread of no more than 1 unit to 3 units, playing on the main floor at a low roller table for absolutely pitiful small stakes, attract any heat using the above strategies?"

 

[UK-21]

CSM? Can't see anyone will give a $#it about your bet spreads, as these things can't be beaten, can they (according to the manufacturer)? So the heat thing is a non-issue, unless the place in question is a sore loser and throws out players who win by luck, and you do win (when my wife visited LV with friends some years back, one of her group got backed off for this - although as he was raising his bets during a winning streak I suspect the casino thought he was counting).

Bearing in mind the "penetration" of the game, I think whatever you do it'll still be subject to huge variance/luck (call it what you will), and making small increases in bets on the minute advantages you describe will have little effect. Depends what you're looking to achieve? If it's some recreational play, I'd say stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing. If you're looking to come away with more than you started with, find a shoe game where you have a greater chance of doing this. If you're looking to play for free, and breakeven, with an OTT HE of around 0.5% stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing.

Whenever I've played a CSM, only three times for short sessions, my hope (I did have the word "aim" in here) was always to walk away with enough to cover the dinner/drinks bill for the night. But I've always been under no illusions that I've been in the hands of the gods.

I believe these things can be beaten, but it would take a team covering every box on a table, and netting off the count of 2 or more rounds (dependent on when the cards went back in), with huge bet spreads, to do it.

Just my two bob's worth.

 

[JulieCA]

Did I see an interview with Zengrifter where he discussed something about counting at a table with these things? Maybe he has an update on the newer machines.

As a basic strategy player (having already established that my counting isn't ready for prime time), I have never made any money playing at a table with a CSM and I now refuse to play at them.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

CSM? Can't see anyone will give a $#it about your bet spreads, as these things can't be beaten, can they (according to the manufacturer)? So the heat thing is a non-issue, unless the place in question is a sore loser and throws out players who win by luck, and you do win (when my wife visited LV with friends some years back, one of her group got backed off for this - although as he was raising his bets during a winning streak I suspect the casino thought he was counting).

Bearing in mind the "penetration" of the game, I think whatever you do it'll still be subject to huge variance/luck (call it what you will), and making small increases in bets on the minute advantages you describe will have little effect. Depends what you're looking to achieve? If it's some recreational play, I'd say stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing. If you're looking to come away with more than you started with, find a shoe game where you have a greater chance of doing this. If you're looking to play for free, and breakeven, with an OTT HE of around 0.5% stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing.

Whenever I've played a CSM, only three times for short sessions, my hope (I did have the word "aim" in here) was always to walk away with enough to cover the dinner/drinks bill for the night. But I've always been under no illusions that I've been in the hands of the gods.

I believe these things can be beaten, but it would take a team covering every box on a table, and netting off the count of 2 or more rounds (dependent on when the cards went back in), with huge bet spreads, to do it.

Just my two bob's worth.

Newb,

Thanks for your reply but I believe you misinterpreted what I said.

Yes, there are 6 decks loaded into a CSM. However, the dealer fills up a discard tray of cards and only returns the cards back to the CSM when the discard tray is full.

CSM's are only unbeatable when the cards are returned to the CSM after every hand (which is what casinos usually do). If cards stay out of the CSM over several consecutive hands before being returned to the machine, then you have dependent trials for those consecutive hands.

Essentially, this means the CSM becomes a shoe with one deck penetration. Think of it as "the dealer shuffles every x rounds" with x being a value from 2 to 10 depending on how many people are at the table.


I agree with you that this effect would be rather small... but still it does mean in principle that "if a lot of 4's, 5's and 6's (relative to tens) come out in one round and are placed in the discard tray (i.e. not returned to the shoe), then betting more in the next round is more likely to pay off."

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Did I see an interview with Zengrifter where he discussed something about counting at a table with these things? Maybe he has an update on the newer machines.

As a basic strategy player (having already established that my counting isn't ready for prime time), I have never made any money playing at a table with a CSM and I now refuse to play at them.

Did the casino return all the cards to the CSM immediately after every round?

Because at this place, the cards are only returned to the machine when the discard tray is full (i.e. about one deck's worth of cards have been withdrawn). Hence there are several rounds between replacing the cards back into the machine. Mathematically this is identical to a shoe game with 1 deck penetration.

 

[irobinson]

Even with 1 deck out, there is still a lot of low cards left. It would still be fairly unbeatable I would think. In theory you could get nothing but 2's and 3's (I know unlikely) for a few rounds and that would almost be the entire discard rack. They would need to deal through at least 3 decks to get an idea of what is going on. Otherwise, anything can happen.

 

[UK-21]

No, I understood that bit. If there is a deck or so in the discard tray before the cards are returned to the input hopper on the machine, it means there has been around 3 rounds dealt out with a table of 6 players (11/12 + 3/4 multiplied by 3??). This arrangement could be beaten. It means that any cards dealt out in the first round won't put an appearance back in for the next four rounds at the very least. If the first two rounds are rich in small cards, and the RC hits 11+ it shifts the odds in your favour. But it is of course an assumed advantage based upon your TC calculation - if you accept that there are two decks or so queued to be dealt out, there are no guarantees that these will contain any of the additional high cards still in the machine. If the third round increases the RC, so much the better. But, I think you'll need much bigger spreads to beat the game than you're proposing.

From my limited experience of playing these things, and small knowledge of how they work, I reckon that the chances that cards just reinserted back appearing at the next hand, or the one after that, are remote - so even if the cards from each round are returned immediately there is some latency in the process which could, in theory, be exploited. But any advantage will only be for a hand or two, so a HUGE spread would be necessary to create a net win over the longer term to make up for losses during pos counts and having to play through the neg ones. I've never attempted the sums, as I see little point in doing so - I haven't the time, money or interest to prove or disprove the theory.

As I've said above, unless you're planning to "beat the game" I think you should stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing - thereby reducing your variance. And of course, enjoy, your evening out.

Good luck with it.

 

[irobinson]

That little wheel with all the little slugs don't have more than a few cards in them I thought. Since the wheel is always moving in some random fashion the cards they put back in the hopper could come around again quite soon - I don't think it queue's up 2 decks to be dealt. It is usually enough for 1 round or so. Otherwise, this would easier to track over a longer period of watching the machine (and knowing when those discards would show up again), especially if it did queue up 2 decks. That would, in theory, be almost 50% and I don't think the casinos would go for that.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

As I've said above, unless you're planning to "beat the game" I think you should stick with BS, flat bet, and keep your fingers crossed you'll hit an upward swing - thereby reducing your variance. And of course, enjoy, your evening out.

Good luck with it.

Thanks for your advice. You are probably correct that the game would be very difficult to beat... I merely want to make my time at the tables last longer. You would argue that the variance I'd encounter with counting strategies would simply not be worth the small potential improvement in chances, then?

Again, thanks for your advice.

 

[irobinson]

Thanks for your advice. You are probably correct that the game would be very difficult to beat... I merely want to make my time at the tables last longer. You would argue that the variance I'd encounter with counting strategies would simply not be worth the small potential improvement in chances, then?

Again, thanks for your advice.

True - play a while and get some good comps. Maybe you can get ahead/even with that.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

True - play a while and get some good comps. Maybe you can get ahead/even with that.

Thanks for the advice. Is 40 units enough to get long play and some comps? Or should I go for 80 units and play when lower minimums get rated?

I also know about playing slow and whoring for the free drinks... I'm very good at that part

 

[UK-21]

That little wheel with all the little slugs don't have more than a few cards in them I thought. Since the wheel is always moving in some random fashion the cards they put back in the hopper could come around again quite soon - I don't think it queue's up 2 decks to be dealt. It is usually enough for 1 round or so. Otherwise, this would easier to track over a longer period of watching the machine (and knowing when those discards would show up again), especially if it did queue up 2 decks. That would, in theory, be almost 50% and I don't think the casinos would go for that.

I read somewhere there were 15 trays on the ferris wheel holding up to a max of 15 cards each -so at any one time there could be up to 225 out of 312 cards playing merry-go-round. The remaining 87 would be queued to go on the output ramp, and of course during play a number would be on the felt. What I don't know is the max size of the output ramp, although I reasonably assumed this to be around 2 decks. The trays are, allegedly, discharged into the output ramp at random points between start and end (controlled by a chip with a RNG) although a 15 card tray couldn't be discharged to the very front. If you assume that nothing could be discharged in front of the first 15 cards on the ramp, then this would mean that nothing that has gone back into the machine has any hope of being played straight back out.

A lot of theory of course - at least until Shufflemaster Inc publish the exploded mechanical diagram of the one-2-six on their web site. I've written to them on this point and they are currently considering it.

No doubt, some of their technicians are having a good laugh as they read through this post. Enjoy guys . . . .

 

[UK-21]

Thinking about this thread, I've just had a thought in the shower . . .

Wouldn't it be funny if it ever became public that because of the mechanics, functionality and design of the one-2-six, once some cards went into it they would never come out again. Say three cards would end up at the back of the exit ramp but because of the random insertions from the trays they would never make it to the front and be dealt out.

So every casino on the planet that leases these things would be guilty of cheating their customers, by effectively removing cards from the six decks in play - thus putting them in contravention of their operators' licenses? Oh how funny would that be?

I could see the counter-claims putting Shufflemaster Inc out of business.

How much do you think it would take to "turn" one of their technicians?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Thinking about this thread, I've just had a thought in the shower . . .

Wouldn't it be funny if it ever became public that because of the mechanics, functionality and design of the one-2-six, once some cards went into it they would never come out again. Say three cards would end up at the back of the exit ramp but because of the random insertions from the trays they would never make it to the front and be dealt out.

So every casino on the planet that leases these things would be guilty of cheating their customers, by effectively removing cards from the six decks in play - thus putting them in contravention of their operators' licenses? Oh how funny would that be?

I could see the counter-claims putting Shufflemaster Inc out of business.

How much do you think it would take to "turn" one of their technicians?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Its certainly an interesting thought. Even if it is kind of a derivative of "all CSM's are rigged." I believe CSM's are fair, but I do understand why BJ AP's dislike them. Even I deliberately play slowly to compensate for fast games (plus its the easiest comp-whoring tatctic). Personally, I think the "CSM+Discard Tray" method is going to become more popular as a way of balancing the interests of "game protection" and "keeping the game technically winnable so as to make Blackjack an attractive option." However, it would need more than 1 deck pen for that to happen. 2 or 3 would be a good place to start.

In other news I'm running training sessions spreading 1 to 2, assuming I'm playing under "low min bets get rated" conditions... it seems to be going pretty well. Maybe its just positive variance but with a base house edge of 0.1% it doesn't take much to increase the chances of a good hand.