ZenKinG said:
Card clumping an ASM completely nullifies the player cut before the game begins. Also we have NO IDEA what is in the shoe since the cards come pre shuffled in 90% of this mafia ridden piece of shit town. Theres so many people out there thag have no idea what is happening behind the scenes. Out of all the industries out there, we're supposed to expect a fair game from an industry that relies on taking your money. Thats a good one. Thats why it frustrates me so much the lack of transparency these days.
Don't know which casinos in LV use clumping ASM but I strongly suspect some PA casinos like Harrah's, The Meadows and Sand use ASM to clump cards, either permanently or selectively. I have encountered so many times this sequence, I called "counter killer". Playing straight using conventional bet ramp based on TC, I have lost most of my max bets again and again. To simplify the explanation first, let's assume the six-deck is composed of A,B,C,D,E,F. Each character represents one deck. Your shoe could be presented to you as ABCDEF, BCDEFA, CDEFAB, DEFABC, EFABCD, FABCDE, so the cut doesn't matter. To simply the process, we just use ABCDEF in this example. Also this is a level 2 count.
A is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC crossing these 52 cards is zero.
B is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC playing is zero.
C contains small card clump. It will boost RC by +20 to +30.
D is face card rich (face card to small card ratio is 2 to 1). It will reduce RC by -18 to -12.
E contains face card clump. But the face card is in the last 10 cards of the 52 cards. It will reduce RC by -20 to -30. (That means in first 42 cards, it contains less face cards than small cards. This is the tricky part that ASM beats AP.)
F is small card rich (face card to small card ratio is 1 to 2). It will boost RC by +12 to +18.
The worst cut is to cut in the beginning of deck F. Now after playing one deck, RC is probably +15. Then through the next two decks (A and B), you increase your bets but in fact you have no advantage. Then through deck C, the RC is increasing and you gradually increase your bet, but you are actually through the small card clump, dealer keeps making a hand on your high bets. Deck D is your final deck, but it is face card rich, not face card clump, there are not all face cards but well mixed face cards and small cards. Because of the extreme high count but the face card clump is actually in deck E behind the cut card, your index play is super inaccurate.
The above is the worst scenario when the cut card is placed in the worst place. But there is no right place. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck D, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is negative. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck C, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is neutral.
The above just demonstrates the anti-TC aspect of the sequence. It also contains the anti-BS aspect. I may discuss in the future.
I will finish the discussion with a current shoe that I did not follow my own modification and lost big. The dealer is one of my favorite. He cut it deep probably 45 cards off the six deck. When I know it is the last hand, it is about 50 cards left. RC is +28 for Zen. So TC is +28. I side count 8 and 9. There are seven 8 and 9 left. So theoretically I have high card count about 28, mid card count about 7, small card count about 14. I switched to two hands and have super max bet out. Unfortunately I don't get twenty. My tablemates don't get twenty. Dealer don't get twenty. It is clear that the ten face card clump is not into the play. Like ZK, I am not saying that it is impossible to lose at high count. I am saying I have seen the same sequence and playing it the conventional way, I have lost 80% of these max bets. I will discuss the remedy to this problem in the future.