standard shuffle procedure

[stophon]

What are some typical shuffle procedures for 1 and 2 deck games in vegas and reno? You don't have to give away your secret game, just typical (not necessarily exploitable) shuffles that are seen at many casinos.

 

[rukus]

if anyone decides to respond, please do it via PM rather than on the public board.

 

[Pro21]

I don't see any need to keep secret the standard shuffle.

On single deck it is riffle, riffle, strip, riffle. Most casinos also add a "box" in between each riffle. A box is a cut.

 

[rukus]

I don't see any need to keep secret the standard shuffle.

On single deck it is riffle, riffle, strip, riffle. Most casinos also add a "box" in between each riffle. A box is a cut.

wanted to err on the side of caution, since some people (not necessarily you) find it hard to draw the line between what should be posted publicly and what shouldnt be. as a general rule of thumb, i put all shuffle information in the private category.

 

[stophon]

On single deck it is riffle, riffle, strip, riffle. Most casinos also add a "box" in between each riffle. A box is a cut.

Wow, that shuffle really is effective. My sim shows that shuffle absolutely decimating the chances of an ace stayed paired with its key card.

I have a couple of questions though. I have heard there are thick strips and thin strips (or am I just making that up?) whats the difference between the two and when do you see which.

So for calculating E.V.
51% adv if player dealt ace
-34% if dealer dealt ace
What is the adv if no one is dealt the ace but the ace still remains in the deck (as in you could hit and get the ace)?

 

[Blue Efficacy]

Thick strips mean they pull fewer, thicker chunks of cards off.

If a shuffle decimated the chances of a key card remaining with its Ace, that would be a good thing. Decimation means reducing by 10%.

I have seen many different shuffles for 2D games. Some exploitable, most not.

 

[moo321]

Your exploitable shuffles are probably gonna be found in shoes, not single deck. And that's more for tracking, rather than sequencing.

 

[stophon]

Alright my shuffle sim shows you can obtain a 1.74% advantage by spreading to three hands if the key card is the 13th card played and the last card played before betting.

I used:
Anthony Curtis's shuffle data
Player ace 51% advantage
Dealer ace -36% advantage
No ace -.78% adv (-.17% HE + -.61% EOR of one ace)

Seems like a one and there quarter percent advantage is pretty exploitable to me, especially when you can use multiple keys each shuffle.

 

[stophon]

What about double deck? What are the most common shuffles?

 

[rukus]

maybe its not my place to say, and maybe single and double deck shuffles are pretty standard. but i see no reason why we should be posting analysis of those shuffles, whether the results are good or bad for us, on public sites for casinos to see.

 

[moo321]

What about double deck? What are the most common shuffles?

Again, double deck usually has effective shuffles.

There is a difference between sequencing (trying to predict a specific card) and tracking (trying to cut a high count into play). Sequencing is going to be nearly impossible in most cases through a shuffle. Tracking is possibly doable, usually in shoe games. MIT tried it and failed miserably, so I've personally never given it any effort.

 

[stophon]

Again, double deck usually has effective shuffles.

There is a difference between sequencing (trying to predict a specific card) and tracking (trying to cut a high count into play). Sequencing is going to be nearly impossible in most cases through a shuffle. Tracking is possibly doable, usually in shoe games. MIT tried it and failed miserably, so I've personally never given it any effort.

The key and the ace can be seperated 70% of the time and you still can gain a nice advantage.

 

[stophon]

maybe its not my place to say, and maybe single and double deck shuffles are pretty standard. but i see no reason why we should be posting analysis of those shuffles, whether the results are good or bad for us, on public sites for casinos to see.

I would really appreciate PM's then. Please, it only takes a second.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

maybe its not my place to say, and maybe single and double deck shuffles are pretty standard. but i see no reason why we should be posting analysis of those shuffles, whether the results are good or bad for us, on public sites for casinos to see.

What is the harm in saying "most stores shuffle like this"?

The casinos all know how they shuffle the cards.

It's not like we're telling people where to find shoe games with one pass shuffles or anything like that.

 

[rukus]

What is the harm in saying "most stores shuffle like this"?

The casinos all know how they shuffle the cards.

It's not like we're telling people where to find shoe games with one pass shuffles or anything like that.

the harm isnt posting the shuffle for a single or double deck game; as ive agreed, theyre pretty standard. the harm comes from when someone analyzes it and posts the results. why should we publicly confirm or deny the validity of a shuffle procedure, however standard it may be. why do the casinos' work for them and/or push some results right in front of their faces?

 

[iCountNTrack]

Again, double deck usually has effective shuffles.

There is a difference between sequencing (trying to predict a specific card) and tracking (trying to cut a high count into play). Sequencing is going to be nearly impossible in most cases through a shuffle. Tracking is possibly doable, usually in shoe games. MIT tried it and failed miserably, so I've personally never given it any effort.

The problem is when people get greedy and focus too much on STing or other advanced techniques, and forget about card counting. Most of the advanced techniques are opportunistic techniques meaning you can only use them whenever you spot a weakness, for that matter the game is also very volatile one quick simple change can kill the game for instance changing the shuffle procedure. A good card counting game is much more robust.

With all due respect to the MIT team and their achievements, there successes or failures are not a standard norm for the doability of a certain technique