Sharmon: Shuffled shoes

[Sharmon]

After reading Arnold's new book I have a real problem seeing a freshly shuffled shoe as a discrete sequence of cards even though the last dealt shoe is known (up to the round finishing the cutcard) . Is there any math describing the effect of knowing the previous shoe and the shuffle that attempted to mangle it? I have already had a taste of what ST can do and I really find card counting secondary (though necessary of course). Does anyone have an effective method for quickly feeding the plugging that casinos insist on doing into the final cut position . The casino that I have easy access to has decided to exclude the useless discard plug but is now pulling plugs completly from the bottom of the pack. I was able to follow it twice (hence the appetite) but find it very hard to make my efforts anything less than obvious. Discrete hints would be very much appreciated.

[Jake {|:>)]

> After reading Arnold's new book I have a
> real problem .

You need to read it again and start using appropriate terminology if you want us to understand your questions.

Is there any math describing the effect of knowing the previous shoe and the shuffle that attempted to mangle it?

Yes and no. There is math by Gary Gottlieb on very simple shuffles. For real world shuffles you need simulation not computation. You might start with Qfits' CVShuffle.

Does anyone have an effective
> method for quickly feeding the plugging that
> casinos insist on doing into the final cut
> position .

final cut position ?...what do you mean?

The casino that I have easy
> access to has decided to exclude the useless
> discard plug but is now pulling plugs
> completly from the bottom of the pack.

What the heck does this sentence mean?

Jake

[Sharmon]

The casino used to split the pack in half (2 X 3 decks) then pull a 30-45 card segment from about 35 cards from the bottom and put in on top. This is repeated 3 additional times for each pack , the badly named "final cut position" was meant to mean the change in the desired cut caused by this plugging moving around a slug that is being tracked. I put this shuffle into Norm's CVSH and it showed that the tops were less contaminated after this shuffle (they now take the bottom 40-45 cards and put in on top of the pack before pulling the other 3 slugs out) than the bottoms were using the casino's old shuffle , but it is much harder to eyeball the plugging. The question finally would be, is it better to make a model of this and only track shuffles that follow the model closely (by dealer) or does following the plugging get easy enough to follow without making it obvious what you're doing. The old way was great they simply left the bottoms of both stacks and did a RR once then a ladder to finish making it very easy to follow a slug. Now it is almost the opposite with the tops untouched but not quite due to dealer sloppiness.

> You need to read it again and start using
> appropriate terminology if you want us to
> understand your questions.

> Is there any math describing the effect of
> knowing the previous shoe and the shuffle
> that attempted to mangle it?

> Yes and no. There is math by Gary Gottlieb
> on very simple shuffles. For real world
> shuffles you need simulation not
> computation. You might start with Qfits'
> CVShuffle.

> Does anyone have an effective

> final cut position ?...what do you mean?

> The casino that I have easy

> What the heck does this sentence mean?

> Jake