Oh sure craps can't be beaten. That's the reason i was barred from shooting.
Updated 08-29-2016 at 10:09 AM by Jabberwocky
Really interesting! Question for Norm--does the "trip risk of ruin" widget in CVCX reflect this math when 2 hands are being played??
WOW.. Great article I learn some thing new almost everyday,Thanks for posting
Updated 03-10-2013 at 07:30 AM by bebe
Originally Posted by bigplayer
The EV estimates for card counting already figures in that sometimes all of the big cards are cut out of play. A high count never guarantees that you're gonna get those cards...it is just a predictive tool and nothing more. If we could guarantee that high cards would always come out when the count went up the variance at blackjack would be significantly lower.
I don't understand what this has to do with the topic or any comments

People who tout "clumping" as some sort of diabolical casino plot are simply looking for ways to explain away plain old variance.
weird, I thought most voodoo systems sought alternative ways to obtain an advantage, not try to vilify casinos for the way normal objects behave when acted on
Card counting modern shoe games is a grinding exercise versus very thin edges. Again, totally random shuffles will always have random clumps of high and low cards...if the big and small cards were evenly distributed the shuffle would not be random and the game would be unbeatable as the house edge would be locked in. Even a continuous shuffle machine will produce long series of consecutive small or big cards. Shuffle a single deck of cards 1000 times and I'll bet you find slugs of 6 or 7 big or small cards.
This doesn't have anything to do with voodoo clumping theories as i understand them

Clumping occurs...it is part of randomness and it's already accounted for in the expectations of blackjack. Now, if you can predict where sections of big cards are and cut them into play and where sections of small cards are and cut them out of play you can take advantage of clumping...this is the classic Non-Random Shuffle and the tool is Shuffle Tracking.
? I don't know what this has to do with voodoo clumping theory

Delaying your bet increases based on no special knowledge about the shoe other than hunches about clumps that may or may not be real is just voodoo and is costing you EV because of sub-optimal betting. If you think the shuffle is dishonest in some way
I think clumping theory stems from how the cards are collected during play, not from a dishonest shuffle. I think that you think card clumpists are referring to clumps that form in nature. I think that card clump theory stems from the fact that the cards are not put in the discard tray randomly.

then you should not be playing at all.
I dont rely on card clumping ideas to get an edge, but I'm open minded to the possibility of things that haven't been proven or disproven. This article and simulation are interesting and worth reading. It certainly doesn't disprove card clumping but does indicate some effect, albeit minor.
the exhaustive simulations seemed to have proved conclusively that clumping does not change the house/player edge in any statistically significant way

but to follow up a bit, have there been any simulations run, with deviations from the basic strategy based on some criteria (maybe 3 high cards in a row or 3 babies in row) for being in a low or high clump?

thanks in advance for anyone who has any info regarding my question
Updated 09-04-2012 at 04:31 PM by rob
Originally Posted by bigplayer
rob, that was not the object of the study. proponents of clumping say that it gives the house a special advantage against everyone and that these are reasons to use a special strategy or avoid doubling down or whatever. The point of Bryce's sim is to show that clumping has very little to no effect on the house advantage.
rob, that was not the object of the study. proponents of clumping say that it gives the house a special advantage against everyone and that these are reasons to use a special strategy or avoid doubling down or whatever. The point of Bryce's sim is to show that clumping has very little to no effect on the house advantage.
the study is impressive with simulations of seemingly every type of shuffle (non-shuffle), etc.

the conclusion is is of course that clumping is not a factor

but here is my HUGE question regarding the simulation studies:
what strategy was used for the player, I am assuming basic strategy...I believe the point of clumping strategies is to DEVIATE from basic strategy when clumps (high or low) are detected

so were deviations to the basic strategy tried in the simulations when in a high or low clump?..seems not

can anyone help with the is answer

thanks!!
The EV estimates for card counting already figures in that sometimes all of the big cards are cut out of play. A high count never guarantees that you're gonna get those cards...it is just a predictive tool and nothing more. If we could guarantee that high cards would always come out when the count went up the variance at blackjack would be significantly lower. People who tout "clumping" as some sort of diabolical casino plot are simply looking for ways to explain away plain old variance. Card counting modern shoe games is a grinding exercise versus very thin edges. Again, totally random shuffles will always have random clumps of high and low cards...if the big and small cards were evenly distributed the shuffle would not be random and the game would be unbeatable as the house edge would be locked in. Even a continuous shuffle machine will produce long series of consecutive small or big cards. Shuffle a single deck of cards 1000 times and I'll bet you find slugs of 6 or 7 big or small cards.

Clumping occurs...it is part of randomness and it's already accounted for in the expectations of blackjack. Now, if you can predict where sections of big cards are and cut them into play and where sections of small cards are and cut them out of play you can take advantage of clumping...this is the classic Non-Random Shuffle and the tool is Shuffle Tracking. Delaying your bet increases based on no special knowledge about the shoe other than hunches about clumps that may or may not be real is just voodoo and is costing you EV because of sub-optimal betting. If you think the shuffle is dishonest in some way then you should not be playing at all.
If someone found a way to "prove" clumping they may not be as academically motivated to share it.

Big player teams working doesn't prove that clumping doesn't exist. At most it "proves" that the EV of the rest of the shoe is high enough to over come the EV lost in the first hand or two after a low card clump (which BPs often don't play because they have to meander over to the table). Further more it is still expected that there are plenty of small cards left in the shoe which may come out immediately (as predicted by clumping) which will be largely compensated for by betting bigger and having an increased chance of catching big cards.

Clumping isn't saying card counting doesn't work. Although it suggests that raising bets slowly (for camp) might not cost as much as you think.
When I come across these clumps of cards I always tell myself that clumps are part of randomness and that being random does not mean that the cards are evenly dispersed.
Most certainly AussiePlayer, but the unfortunate thing is that the people who need to hear or read these words the most, are also the people that are searching for...

"... a simple rule for riches they (can) memorize on the taxi ride to the casino." - Copied & pasted from paragraph 5 of the article

There are plenty of people out there that are always looking for that "magic pill" or "formula" that will solve all of life's problems. As long as that is the case, people like Jerry Patterson will be right there to fill that gap in the market for profit.
Updated 07-06-2012 at 06:34 PM by Ace-King
Very well written article that will hopefully reach the ears of those who most need to hear them.
I have read all the books Wong , Yuri, Sharpshooter, Scoblete, ect. I have practiced for about a year and half. I agree with your well written article. I had held out hope that Wong could be right with his correlation theory but alas it never held up for me. I had thought Wong was onto something when he used the all seven set to throw less sevens but that did not work either. I also found the same thing when viewing the dice in slow motion there was much more random movement then thought. In theory though it sounds good as you do not need to make the seven not show up for that many more rolls to turn the best bets on the table into positive bets.
Good fun and a nice, no--- a Golden Touch-- on the last sentence.