RJT said:
I also feel the CVData ST is excellent. Have you had the chance to play with that AM?
RJT.
Haven't used it yet, but it should be a good way to determine how simple cut card techniques can boost the counting game.
When I'm doing analysis what I normally use is the card-to-card data in CVShuffle. It's a painful technique, but I'll grab 100 or so card-to-card data sets and cut-and-paste them to an Excel file. Then I have a solid sample of a particular dealer's output on a particular shuffle and I can apply them to any tracking or sequencing scheme I wish, with enough data to give me some reasonable statistics. You can apply this method to your visual techniques if you wish; you just write your program to "see" a packet with some degree of accuracy you determine, and again "see" where it ends up in the daughter shoe, and you'll be able to determine just how many of the cards you were hoping for end up where you expected, plus the standard deviation of that number. For nearly all shuffles, you won't be encouraged.
Just one thing though, there is a word which is sometimes used in American society (particularly in the Northeast) and that's
omerta. BJ Bob may be able to give an insightful discussion of this word and it's implications, and it's something you must observe on these websites (and really, with nearly everyone) when doing research into
particular shuffles or
particular techniques. I myself have been busted for this a few times when I was starting out, coming up with an new idea then coming to a site "Hey guys, look what I just discovered, you can..." , resulting in a few unhappy notes from full-time pros who rely on exactly this unpublished technique. Having a solid reputation for observing
omerta will open doors for you.