The cookbook

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#1
Does anyone have the shuffle trackers cookbook and is it really a good read. I need to do a more research on the subject but a little hesitant to fork over the cash for info. If it's really does give the skinny on the subject I would appreciate some input from anyone who has one or read it and uses the info contained in it. blackchipjim
 

Sonny

Well-Known Member
#2
It is the best source of information on shuffle tracking available. It covers different methods of tracking, different types of weaknesses in the shuffle, how to spot a beatable shuffle, ways of estimating your advantage, some drills for training yourself, and much more. My only complaint is that it doesn’t cover the NRS formula, but that information can be found elsewhere.

There are other sources on the web that will get you started, but Snyder's book will tie up all the loose ends when you're actually trying to use the techniques.

-Sonny-
 

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#4
cooking

Thanks for the info just thought there may be more insight in the cookbook. I guess practice will be the rule and the edge will play out. I did get your pm nightspirit thanks. blackchipjim
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#5
I'll actually disagree with zg on this one. I've got the latest edition of BBIB and i still think that the cookbook is an entirely invaluable resource. I wouldn't swap my cookbook for BBIB and the extra money back.
Two points i would make however, the first is that you shouldn't use the betting system suggested in the cookbook - it doesn't work. Look up NRS betting. It's a little more involved but that will actually win you money.
Second is more practical advice. The key to really getting good at shuffle tracking is getting really good a deck estimation. It sounds ridiculous that i'd have to say that, but many people who try tracking aren't nearly as good visually as they think they are. I wasn't when i started.. When you can accurately estimate a pile to a 1/4 of a deck you'll find it a lot easier to track a packet. It allows you to use your brain and your eye to track the packet.

RJT.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#6
RJT said:
you shouldn't use the betting system suggested in the cookbook - it doesn't work. Look up NRS betting. It's a little more involved but that will actually win you money.
Agree. I've run extensive sims on this and the cookbook betting method does not work in most cases. NRS does.
 

blackchipjim

Well-Known Member
#7
deck est.

Thank you both and I concur to the disicpline of desk estimation on betting. I do indeed need much more practice on deck estimation and betting into the said advantage. I usually need an unusual amount of aces and high cards in a series to get my attention. I don't have the skills yet to follow small amounts with accuarcy but tons of practice will change that. blackchipjim
 

alienated

Well-Known Member
#8
Cookbook betting

RJT said:
Two points i would make however, the first is that you shouldn't use the betting system suggested in the cookbook - it doesn't work. Look up NRS betting. It's a little more involved but that will actually win you money.
RJT.
I also have a problem with the betting recommendations in the cookbook and the broader conclusions Snyder draws from them. (My opinion is that the cookbook is quite good on some methods of tracking shuffles, but not good on betting or the evaluation of profitability.) However, I want to qualify my criticism of the cookbook betting method, because I think it is a useful method in some circumstances, just not all.

In my view, the betting method in the cookbook works fine for the kind of approach it is probably intended for: namely, targeting very small, rich slugs that end up in a small section of the new shoe. Two factors make the cookbook betting method okay in this specific context.

First, the slug is handpicked. It is not taken from a predetermined point in the shoe that therefore has a random count attached to it. Rather, it is a rich slug that is selected from wherever it occurs in the previous shoe precisely because it is rich.

Second, the slug is small and may therefore be dispersed through a small section of the next shoe. As a result, the initial true count will be high and unlikely to turn neutral or negative before the final betting point of the slug.

An example may illustrate these two factors. If a player always intends to track the first 6 cards of a shoe as the slug (a predetermined slug), the count of those 6 cards can vary from -6 to +6. Sometimes the slug will be useful, sometimes it won't be. But if, instead, the player intends to find 6 cards somewhere in the shoe that is rich, the slug count will not be random. It will always be useful information (provided it is trackable and not broken up by the shuffle). This aspect of the example relates to the first factor.

In terms of the second factor, if those 6 slug cards are all big and get mixed into a half-deck section of the next shoe, they produce an initial true count of just under +12. The player won't lose much by assuming a constant true count through that half deck. Even if the running count dropped 13 over the first 13 cards of this half deck, NRS tells us that the true count would still be about +6. (I've assumed a 6-deck game, so the IRC using NRS would be about +20 and N about 1.8.) Unless the player is heads up, a bet can't be placed much deeper into the playzone than this, so the cookbook betting method performs okay.

A third factor that will sometimes further validate the cookbook betting method in cases similar to the example above is that the slug may be dispersed fairly evenly throughout the section of the shoe in which it appears (depending on how the relevant cards are shuffled). If the slug cards are virtually all big cards, there will then be potency all through the slug.

Having said all this, the cookbook downplays the value of other tracking approaches because it evaluates them under the assumption that the cookbook betting method (effectively, an assumption that the true count is constant throughout the playzone) is always used. This is very, very far from optimal if either the slug has a random count (i.e. comes from a predetermined area of the previous shoe) or the slug is dispersed throughout a large playzone. In these cases, a lot of the value of the track comes in being able to update the true count using NRS throughout the playzone.

For example, the player might track a predetermined 1.5 decks (the "slug," which may come from various parts of the previous shoe) into one half of a 6-deck shoe. Unless, by chance, the predetermined 1.5 decks is very rich, the cookbook betting method will be useless. For instance, there is not much use assuming a constant true count of zero through one half of the shoe because the predetermined slug happened to have a zero count. Accordingly, Snyder arrives at the conclusion that best-half play is worthless. However, even the zero-count situation (which is the worst-case scenario for the best-half tracker) is not worthless when using NRS. The player still benefits, even though the IRC is zero, because the shoe can be treated off the top as containing only 4.5 decks rather than 6.

Like Norm, I spent time analyzing the cookbook betting recommendation, though in my analysis I needed to resort to algebraic approximations, and so on, as I am not a programmer. (I have always been big on NRS for predetermined and/or large playzones, and the comments on NRS in the cookbook irritated me.) My findings agree with yours and Norm's if the slug comes from a predetermined location and hence has a random count. (I am guessing this is why Norm qualifies his statement by noting that the cookbook approach is unprofitable under many, but by implication not all, circumstances.) For large playzones containing predetermined slugs, the cookbook betting approach often won't even produce a player edge (over the entire shoe, not just playzone). However, if the slug is small and rich (because it is handpicked), the method will produce a decent player edge. The shorter, richer, and less dispersed the slug, the nearer the cookbook method gets to NRS profitability.

I get the definite impression that Snyder's own approach to shuffle tracking involves handpicking slugs, thereby guaranteeing richness. On the other hand, there is an ambiguity, because the cookbook presentation of count frequencies for different slug sizes gives the impression that the slug count is random. This means that Snyder evaluates the profitability of various slugs under the assumption that they have a random count. This method of evaluation is not applicable if the slug is handpicked and hence guaranteed to be rich. The evaluation method also ignores the player disadvantage when not playing the slug.

So, my view is that if a player handpicks small, rich slugs, it is okay to use the cookbook method. However, if the slug comes from a predetermined area of the shoe and/or is considerably dispersed, NRS is indispensible.

The cookbook analysis, based on the constant true-count analysis, results in a dramatic undervaluation of useful methods such as best-half play, or the cutting out of poor slugs, because these methods acquire much of their power from true-count updates within the playzone.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#9
Good to have you with us Alienated!
Actually it was a discussion with Norm that opened my eyes to the weaknesses in AS betting system and further to that conversation i was directed over to one of your posts at the CCC that really got me smart on the NRS formula.
So i've a lot to thank you for!
I find it curious that the cookbook is the only book in print that really covers the subject of shuffle tracking in any serious depth and stranger still that such a highly respected and unquestionable authority of the game like Snyder would choose to leave out any detailed discussion of such an important part of the technique.

RJT.
 
#10
RJT said:
I'll actually disagree with zg on this one. I've got the latest edition of BBIB and i still think that the cookbook is an entirely invaluable resource. I wouldn't swap my cookbook for BBIB and the extra money back.
Thats what I get for being a know-it -all and never reading Cookbook.

Actually, Malmuth's cutoff tracking was as far as I could take it. Limited skill-sets, here. zg
 

alienated

Well-Known Member
#12
RJT said:
Good to have you with us Alienated!
Actually it was a discussion with Norm that opened my eyes to the weaknesses in AS betting system and further to that conversation i was directed over to one of your posts at the CCC that really got me smart on the NRS formula.
So i've a lot to thank you for!
I find it curious that the cookbook is the only book in print that really covers the subject of shuffle tracking in any serious depth and stranger still that such a highly respected and unquestionable authority of the game like Snyder would choose to leave out any detailed discussion of such an important part of the technique.

RJT.
It's good to be here. Actually, I often read the posts. I just don't get around to posting much at the moment. Glad you got something out of the CCC post.

I don't know why Snyder chose to leave out NRS. Maybe it suits the way he tracks himself. As I indicated in my previous post, I think Snyder's betting method makes sense if the player is specifically targeting rich slugs that don't get too dispersed. The emphasis on eyeballing skills suggests this, too.

Even so, I think leaving out NRS made the cookbook quite limited in its usefulness of other tracking strategies.

Another factor may have been Snyder's apparent view that NRS is unnecessarily "theoretical" and "impractical." I don't know if this is really his view, or he thought it would play well to his readership. The notion that NRS is impractical doesn't make sense to me. NRS is really quite simple in its application. That's one of the great things about it. A simple calculation to arrive at the IRC (using a memorized multiplier - how is this any harder than calculating the off-the-top TC?), a memorized N, and the player is free to count as normal. It's really not much different to regular counting.

Another possibility, I guess, is deliberate misinformation. I wouldn't have thought so at one time, but after seeing the more recent Big Book of Blackjack (especially the chapter on SP21), I wonder a little whether this factor may have been at work.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#13
alienated said:
Another possibility, I guess, is deliberate misinformation. I wouldn't have thought so at one time, but after seeing the more recent Big Book of Blackjack (especially the chapter on SP21), I wonder a little whether this factor may have been at work.
This thought has also occurred to me. When i first realized just how flawed the cookbook betting method was when it came to any but the smallest packets i was really quite angry.
For me, when you write a book like the cookbook, it's one thing to make a mistake but to knowingly mislead your readership carries some unpleasant undertones.
I watched manufacturing dissent recently and they made a point about an unwritten commitment that documentary film makers enter and that is to tell their audience the truth. Presenting a bias view of the truth is expected to an extent, but outright lying crosses that invisible line between encouraging your viewers think for themselves and decide what is useful information and out right deceiving them.
I felt that this cut that same line. Snyder is one of the most prominent authorities on the game and carries the trust of his readership with him.
However i believe that the motives behind such deceit could only be based in a desire to protect certain opportunities that weren't widely publicized (aka SP21) so that the serious players that were playing them could continue to make money until someone else eventually let the cat out of the bag. Is that agenda really so negative? When i think about it there have been more than a few occasions that i have flat out lied when asked questions about certain games by other counters and AP's simply to protect the advantage i play with. I've never gone so far as to publish and promote my deceit, but it still seems somewhat hypocritical of me to judge someone else for creating a deception to maintain an advantage.

RJT.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#16
21forme said:
Could someone point to a reference (online or otherwise) about NRS? I can't find one with a Google search.
Probably the best resource i've found on the topic

(Dead link: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/22118)

Once you've read it, mind and thank Alienated for posting it nearly 4 years ago now.

RJT.
 

QFIT

Well-Known Member
#18
RJT said:
Probably the best resource i've found on the topic

(Dead link: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/22118)

Once you've read it, mind and thank Alienated for posting it nearly 4 years ago now.

RJT.
Yes, fantastic post. Should be some posts on bjmath.com as well.
 

RJT

Well-Known Member
#19
RJT said:
Probably the best resource i've found on the topic

(Dead link: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blackjackcardcounterscafe/message/22118)

Once you've read it, mind and thank Alienated for posting it nearly 4 years ago now.

RJT.
Actually i'd like to publicly edit that post to read "best resource i've been recommened" and thank QFIT for the recommendation.
Thanks Norm.

RJT.
 

iCountNTrack

Well-Known Member
#20
I don't know if I am doing anything wrong in my simulations, by I ran a shuffle-tracking simulation using CVdata/ST 4 decks, really simple shuffle tracked the first half-deck that gets mixed with another half a deck to generate one full deck that was cut into play as the first deck for negative NRS. There was very little increase in EV like 0.2%. using hi-lo full indices, and 1-15 bet spread

I don't know but I think the NRS formula overestimates the True Count.

TC=(initial Count*Multiplier+running count)/(pseudo decks-#of decks played)

Lets say you tracked a slug of 26 cards that had a count of -10 (excess of high cards)

Now lets say that this slug got mixed in with half dick that had a count of +8 (excess low cards)

under these conditions the multiplier -1.5

and number of pseudo decks is 1.75

So the initial TC at the beginning of the shoe would be:

15/1.75 = 8.5

so you would bet you maximum bet, hoping the count would drop
unfortunately it won't because of the excess low cards that neutralized the high cards, which basically means your are overbetting and probably losing:mad:

There is an old article by Mike Hall a little outdated perhaps, but still an excellent reading http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/playing/tracking.htm (Archive copy).
Basically it describes how to shuffle track in order to map the whole shoe right after the shuffle. Almost any shuffle is beatable and shoe maps can be generated (you might have to memorize some crazy formulas), but more importantly you need to know if the dealers are consistent and always follow the same pattern for the shuffle you analyzed (wishful thinking)
 
Top