new cards

[Sage]

I have been told that one should not play when new cards have just been introduced on the table. Last few trips to local Indian Casino, I arrived when new packs of cards were being put into play in a six deck game. They "washed" the cards & put them into an ASM. However, during the deal, there were clumps of low cards [where I lost the bet] and clumps of high cards that were a push. Plus if I got a low card against a dealer 10, I always seem to draw a 10 and bust.
Is there anything to the suggestion, “Don’t play until the cards have been shuffled 4 or 5 times?”

 

[assume_R]

I have been told that one should not play when new cards have just been introduced on the table...
Is there anything to the suggestion, “Don’t play until the cards have been shuffled 4 or 5 times?”

Where'd you hear that? I haven't heard that, and I see no reason why new cards, when properly shuffled, should be bad for the player.

Also, it's important to note that just because something has clumps, doesn't mean it's not still random.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_randomness :
"A sequence exhibiting a pattern is not thereby proved not statistically random"

 

[David Lane]

If that were true, clumps of high cards would be your advantage. The fact that you pushed that particular time does not change the advantage. I personally don't believe you need worry about that situation.

 

[QFIT]

If that were true, clumps of high cards would be your advantage. The fact that you pushed that particular time does not change the advantage. I personally don't believe you need worry about that situation.

That's kind of sort of true. Which is to say, it isn't If in fact a casino uses an ineffective wash that produces an unnaturally card consistency, this could be a serious problem to a counter as the basic assumption that unseen cards are random is blown.

 

[Sage]

Randomness

Are there degrees of randomness? Do cards become more random when they are shuffled more? :joker:

 

[NightStalker]

50-50

If in fact a casino uses an ineffective wash that produces an unnaturally card consistency, this could be a serious problem to a counter as the basic assumption that unseen cards are random is blown.

Considering novice basic strategy player who cannot take advantage of ineffective wash, may be playing a game with advantage by using basic strategy. Failing of assumption can't conclude the direction of deviation.

Casino also assumes that the unseen cards are random and hence casino has an advantage(off the top) irrespective of player strategy. If this assumption is false, casino might have a disadvantage to dumbest ploppy..
So, ineffective shuffle can tilt the odds in either way. But player have the option to exploit it while house doesn't

 

[blackchipjim]

Fresh shuffles.

I remember reading somewhere that fresh decks and the first shoe does give a higher advantage to the first and third baseman. My own experience has lead me to seek out these conditions. If I get past the first shoe and others sit down I move to a new table with a fresh deck. The heads up player at least for me does better with fresh shoes. This is just my oppinion and have no math to back this up.

 

[aslan]

Are there degrees of randomness? Do cards become more random when they are shuffled more? :joker:

I'm not a statistician, but I know there is a runs test for randomness. Random shuffles tend to have partial aggregations of high and low cards, and oftentimes have out of the ordinary aggregations of high and low cards. The one thing you will seldom, if ever, see, is several decks that are high, low, high, low, high, low, etc., throughout (high being 2-red8s and low being 9-K, aces and black8s). That is an ordered arrangement. If you flip coins, which has a fifty/fifty probability of heads or tails, you will see that the same holds true--you don't get hthththththt, but something more like hhthhhtthttth.

 

[aslan]

Are there degrees of randomness? Do cards become more random when they are shuffled more? :joker:

I used to think that the more you shuffled the cards, that is, the more random the cards were, the more chance of having every other card being high or low, but that is provably incorrect. As someone pointed out to me in a discussion elsewhere on shuffle composition, the life of a card counter depends on aggregations (clumps) of high and low cards, which is to say, card counters depend on the randomness of shuffles. It's what drives the count one way or the other.

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

I used to think that the more you shuffled the cards, that is, the more random the cards were, the more chance of having every other card being high or low, but that is provably incorrect. As someone pointed out to me in a discussion elsewhere on shuffle composition, the life of a card counter depends on aggregations (clumps) of high and low cards, which is to say, card counters depend on the randomness of shuffles. It's what drives the count one way or the other.

One could argue that there is no such thing as a randomly shuffled deck of cards at all. Random is defined as “lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance.” It could be argued that a deck of cards exists in its so-called random order because of the way it was shuffled. Humans are not perfect, and shuffling machines are only as perfect as the humans that created them. Since a human cannot perfectly shuffle, the cards cannot truly be random. If by chance you could find a dealer that could shuffle perfectly, this also would not be random because with careful evaluation, once would be able to track the shuffle since it would be the same every time if it were perfect.

 

[aslan]

One could argue that there is no such thing as a randomly shuffled deck of cards at all. Random is defined as “lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance.” It could be argued that a deck of cards exists in its so-called random order because of the way it was shuffled. Humans are not perfect, and shuffling machines are only as perfect as the humans that created them. Since a human cannot perfectly shuffle, the cards cannot truly be random. If by chance you could find a dealer that could shuffle perfectly, this also would not be random because with careful evaluation, once would be able to track the shuffle since it would be the same every time if it were perfect.

I won't argue with you whether or not pure randomness exists, only that there is a state of randomness acceptable for mathematical or statistical purposes, and which is subject to certain tests.

 

[SWFL Blackjack]

I won't argue with you whether or not pure randomness exists, only that there is a state of randomness acceptable for mathematical or statistical purposes, and which is subject to certain tests.

I will agree, however I do not believe the claims that new cards are beneficial to a certain base, or less random than non-new cards.

 

[aslan]

I will agree, however I do not believe the claims that new cards are beneficial to a certain base, or less random than non-new cards.

Nor would I argue that they are.

It would take someone with the desire to find out by shuffling 6 brand new decks, washing them, and shuffling them as typical, then loading the data into a computer and dealing them (by computer) to all manner of players from heads-up to a full table, recording the results to each player. Then repeat from the beginning by putting them back in original box order, washing them and shuffling them. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. A statistician can tell you how many times. Then, you may be able to see some kind of difference from what a statistically random shoe would give, or not.

Personally, I'm not up to the task. If there were a decided advantage for the first shoe, or maybe, first several shoes, it might be worthwhile doing the painstaking analysis, but my gut tells me that the cards will be in random order, unless some simple one pass shuffle is used.

 

[bj21abc]

This was discussed in a book - I think it was Peter Griffin's - unless I'm mistaken and it was some edition of BJA ? As I recall the study examined play with completely unshuffled new decks and new decks which had been poorly shuffled.

As I recall there was a bigger advantage to ? first base ?
The conclusion - if I recall correctly - was that the effect is minimal if the cards are shuffled above a very minimal degree.

I have been told that one should not play when new cards have just been introduced on the table. Last few trips to local Indian Casino, I arrived when new packs of cards were being put into play in a six deck game. They "washed" the cards & put them into an ASM. However, during the deal, there were clumps of low cards [where I lost the bet] and clumps of high cards that were a push. Plus if I got a low card against a dealer 10, I always seem to draw a 10 and bust.
Is there anything to the suggestion, “Don’t play until the cards have been shuffled 4 or 5 times?”

 

[Sonny]

There are some good articles on Arnold Snyder's website as well:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/random.htm
http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/manvscom.htm

-Sonny-

 

[aslan]

This was discussed in a book - I think it was Peter Griffin's - unless I'm mistaken and it was some edition of BJA ? As I recall the study examined play with completely unshuffled new decks and new decks which had been poorly shuffled.

As I recall there was a bigger advantage to ? first base ?
The conclusion - if I recall correctly - was that the effect is minimal if the cards are shuffled above a very minimal degree.

I have read that several perfect riffle shuffles (I believe it is 7) will result in a deck of cards becoming completely unshuffled. That means perfect interlacing of every card. Ironically, they have recently determined that a deck is not sufficiently considered to be randomly shuffled until seven shuffles have been completed, obviously not perfect shuffles. In 7 shuffles, it is considered that most of the 52! possibilities have a chance of happening. That's fifty two factorial, not 52, and that's a lot of donuts!

 

[aslan]

I have been told that one should not play when new cards have just been introduced on the table. Last few trips to local Indian Casino, I arrived when new packs of cards were being put into play in a six deck game. They "washed" the cards & put them into an ASM. However, during the deal, there were clumps of low cards [where I lost the bet] and clumps of high cards that were a push. Plus if I got a low card against a dealer 10, I always seem to draw a 10 and bust.
Is there anything to the suggestion, “Don’t play until the cards have been shuffled 4 or 5 times?”

It's funny--I wrote this reply and the computer just rolled it up and threw it away. So I guess I'll have to write it again.

I too hate it when a large clump of cards occurs so that everyone gets a twenty and the dealer gets one too causing a push. I hate it even more when a smaller clump of high cards arises on the first go round, followed by a second clump of low cards on the second go round, so that everyone has a stiff, and of course, the dealer has a ten up card.

But OTOH, if it were not for clumps of cards, the count would never go positive. Thankfully, a really random shuffle results in clumps of cards. A sequence of high card, low card, H, L, H, L, H, L, etc. is an ordered sequence, and not considered random for statistical purposes. What tickles me is that sooner or later a purely random shuffle has to produce such an ordered sequence. lol What do you call that? The exception that proves the rule?

 

[blackchipjim]

Perfect shuffle

According to Wolfram's Mathworld in the section of randomness the deck is returned to the original composition after 8 riffles. Only four dealers were known with the ability to perform this test. We have had threads on this before.