AdvantageRay: New Cards

[AdvantageRay]

Hello all, first want to say that I am new to this site, and I find the discussion (especially the lengthy string on insurance of two hands) quite fascinating!

My question is on the topic of new cards. Through personal observation, I have noticed that when the house sends out new cards, there appears to be a higher number of occurances that favor the house. Hands where the dealer will draw to a four or five card hand (with high count and no aces in the draw) seem to happen much more frequently then if the cards have been a little more used.

I have read up a little bit on sequencing, and thought that there might be a relation between the two. Is there any mathmatical reality to the concept of new cards having a house advantage or (being a relative newcommer to advantage play) is this just a short term fluctuation I am experiencing?

Thanks for any help and/or references on this topic!

David

[Don Schlesinger]

> My question is on the topic of new cards.
> Through personal observation, I have noticed
> that when the house sends out new cards,
> there appears to be a higher number of
> occurances that favor the house.

With all due respect, your "personal observation" has no mathematical validity.

> Hands where
> the dealer will draw to a four or five card
> hand (with high count and no aces in the
> draw) seem to happen much more frequently
> then if the cards have been a little more
> used.

No, that's just not true.

> I have read up a little bit on sequencing,
> and thought that there might be a relation
> between the two.

None whatsoever.

> Is there any mathmatical
> reality to the concept of new cards having a
> house advantage or (being a relative
> newcommer to advantage play) is this just a
> short term fluctuation I am experiencing?

Definitely the latter. Of course, in multi-deck new cards do have a house advantage -- on the first hand and every other, if you're not counting.

> Thanks for any help and/or references on
> this topic!

No such (valid) references exist, because the phenomenon you describe doesn't exist. If you read that it does exist, the source is bogus.

Don

[AdvantageRay]

> With all due respect, your "personal
> observation" has no mathematical
> validity.

> No, that's just not true.

> None whatsoever.

> Definitely the latter. Of course, in
> multi-deck new cards do have a house
> advantage -- on the first hand and every
> other, if you're not counting.

> No such (valid) references exist, because
> the phenomenon you describe doesn't exist.
> If you read that it does exist, the source
> is bogus.

> Don

Thanks Don!
Thats what I was hoping, but just wanted to check it out. Appreciate the response..

David

[Sun Runner]

I can not tell you where I read it (I would if I could but I'm sure it wasn't Patterson as I have not read his stuff) but what you say here goes against something I have always done.

When new cards hit the table, I hit the bricks. I'm sure I read (from what I thought was a credible source) that you are better off waiting until new cards have been played and shuffled several times before playing that stack.

You're saying that's bogus?

Thanks as always.

[Don Schlesinger]

> I can not tell you where I read it (I would
> if I could but I'm sure it wasn't Patterson
> as I have not read his stuff) but what you
> say here goes against something I have
> always done.

Patterson is the only one I know of who ever said stuff like that. And maybe the Boris-clones, who advocate clumping.

> When new cards hit the table, I hit the
> bricks. I'm sure I read (from what I thought
> was a credible source) that you are better
> off waiting until new cards have been played
> and shuffled several times before playing
> that stack.

Not for any valid reason.

> You're saying that's bogus?

Yes, I'm saying it's bogus.

> Thanks as always.

You're most welcome.

Don

[bigplayer]

New cards can present some opportunties if they are not completely shuffled...especially for certain side bets (Royal Match and Lucky Ladies come to mind). If cards remain in clumps of suited high cards (especially when heads up playing 1 spot) the RM & LL are more likely to occur....how much more depends on the incompleteness of the shuffle.

I used to take big advantage of this in a certain Northern Nevada town with the 3/10 single deck Royal Match. They would bring in the new deck but not wash the cards and only do a few riffles and boom off we went...I'd plunk $25 RM bets and win a large chunk of the time. The vig on the reduced shoe payouts might be too much to overcome (I just don't know) using this method.

[Zenfighter]

Casino A

1) After open the new packets, a wash of the cards is performed in an apparently unsuspicious manner.

2) The dealer shuffles the cards in a manner that looks again the usual way for what the standard casino?s procedures generally are.

Shall you jump here and start playing following Don?s advice?

Absolutely, yes. I?m tired of getting decent and winning first shoes.

Casino B

1) After the fresh decks are introduced, no wash of the cards is performed.

2) The dealer simple takes a fresh deck and shuffles it into another one with a standard riffle, riffle, riffle, continuing like that until all the packs form a new pile with the dealer ready to pass you the cut card.

Obviously jumping here seems dubious at best. Ken?s experience is a sort of red flag:

As we began to play, I couldn?t believe how the cards were coming out. Seven of the first ten cards were 4?s. Then, a batch of 3?s came out, followed by a group of 6?s; then, a clumping of 10?s and aces. I kept track of the count, which soared astronomically, as more little cards came out. Staying at the $25 minimum bets, I lost hand after hand. Kenneth S. Uston MDBJ (page246).

But one thing is being false-shuffled and or short-decked, where we?re talking about blatant cheating?s procedures and another question are the irrational fears that tend to emerge as the result of our impressionable and/or emotional minds.

Sincerely

Z

[AdvantageRay]

So in other words, if they wash the cards, all is just a short term fluctuation. If they dont, its possible some false shuffling is happening and I should run?

> Casino A 1) After open the new packets, a
> wash of the cards is performed in an
> apparently unsuspicious manner.

> 2) The dealer shuffles the cards in a manner
> that looks again the usual way for what the
> standard casino?s procedures generally are.

> Shall you jump here and start playing
> following Don?s advice?

> Absolutely, yes. I?m tired of getting decent
> and winning first shoes.

> Casino B 1) After the fresh decks are
> introduced, no wash of the cards is
> performed.

> 2) The dealer simple takes a fresh deck and
> shuffles it into another one with a standard
> riffle, riffle, riffle, continuing like that
> until all the packs form a new pile with the
> dealer ready to pass you the cut card.

> Obviously jumping here seems dubious at
> best. Ken?s experience is a sort of red
> flag:

> As we began to play, I couldn?t believe how
> the cards were coming out. Seven of the
> first ten cards were 4?s. Then, a batch of
> 3?s came out, followed by a group of 6?s;
> then, a clumping of 10?s and aces. I kept
> track of the count, which soared
> astronomically, as more little cards came
> out. Staying at the $25 minimum bets, I lost
> hand after hand. Kenneth S. Uston MDBJ
> (page246).

> But one thing is being false-shuffled and or
> short-decked, where we?re talking about
> blatant cheating?s procedures and another
> question are the irrational fears that tend
> to emerge as the result of our
> impressionable and/or emotional minds.

> Sincerely

> Z

[Zenfighter]

Do it yourself

1)Get four new decks. They should be ordered by rank A to K, A to K, K to A and K to A.

2)Make two piles without touching them A (104 cards) and B (104 cards).

3)Grab 26 cards from each one with both hands and perform 3 rifles.

4)Start building pile C with the first 52 ones until the 4 packs are exhausted.

5)Cut them once at random, and start playing head on against a dealer.

6)See what you get and tell us please. Repeat as many times as you need, starting with cards in new deck order always.

7) If nothing unusual happens, then Uston was looking at a normal fluctuation, too. Otherwise, better to keep off.

Good Luck!

Sincerely

Z

[Fuzzy Math]

Don, I would not consider Arnold Snyder to be a bogus resource. =)

Quote:

Next, I performed a "wash" on the decks which consisted of cards being picked up in clumps of up to 8 cards in sequence. This is the "gross wash" in version 3.0 of Imming's RWC Universal Blackjack Engine. Then, with no other shuffling, the cards were dealt. With this wash, 35 out of every 36 cards dealt are in new-deck sequences, running up or down; the length of the sequences varies from 2 to 8 cards. At the end of every shoe, I started again with fresh decks. I ran 10 million hands for each player.

With a single player at the table, the effect of the sequences again worked to the basic strategy player's advantage. Instead of losing at the rate of 0.5%, the player won at the rate of 1%.

With three players at the table, however, it became obvious that seating position is everything when the cards are in sequential order. The first base player's expectation was still 1.5% above his normal basic strategy expectation. The third base player's expectation, however, was 1.2% below his random basic strategy expectation. The player in the middle seat, was about a quarter percent below normal.

...

As soon as I put in two very gross riffles, even on the first round after the shuffle, the first base player's advantage completely disappeared. The third base player, who had been losing at a rate 4.5% worse with a gross wash than his expectation with a random shuffle, was still losing after two gross riffles, but only at a rate of 1.4% worse. But 1.4% is a significant amount!

...

From the tests I've run thus far, however, my initial conclusions are:

Totally unshuffled fresh decks strongly favor the players, not the house.
As the new-deck sequences are broken down, the player advantage swings to a small house advantage, especially over the third base side of the table. The first base side of the table retains an advantage over the house if new-deck sequences are still present.
If the fresh deck shuffle is thorough enough to break up virtually all of the fresh deck sequences, a small advantage, measurable in tenths of a percent, swings to the house over all players at the table.
Depending on how poor the shuffle is, this house advantage may continue through a number of successive shoes before the random basic strategy expectation returns.

So the answer to your question depends a lot on exactly how (and how poorly) the cards are mixed before being put into play, and where you sit at the table.

Click the link below to read the entire thing. It's quite lengthy, but worthwhile.

Full article here

[Sun Runner]

" .. card counting does work, even when the sequential effects of a poor shuffle on fresh decks are present. Card counters who play only when the count is in their favor need not worry about entering games at any betting position after fresh decks have been introduced, though the advantage from counting may be lowered a few tenths of a percent." Arnold Snyder

Quite possibly this is the information I refered to initially (and have relied on) but with a closer read I must still stand corrected.

As I normally try and play between center and third, the upshot of Snyder's article seems to say there is something to the phenomenon but it's effect is so small it certainly should not drive me to "hit the bricks" as I stated earlier.

Interesting.

[Don Schlesinger]

> " .. card counting does work, even when
> the sequential effects of a poor shuffle on
> fresh decks are present. Card counters who
> play only when the count is in their favor
> need not worry about entering games at any
> betting position after fresh decks have been
> introduced, though the advantage from
> counting may be lowered a few tenths of a
> percent." Arnold Snyder

> Quite possibly this is the information I
> refered to initially (and have relied on)
> but with a closer read I must still stand
> corrected.

> As I normally try and play between center
> and third, the upshot of Snyder's article
> seems to say there is something to the
> phenomenon but it's effect is so small it
> certainly should not drive me to "hit
> the bricks" as I stated earlier.

> Interesting.

I haven't played in every casino in the world. So, maybe there are places that don't shuffle properly. Those don't tend to be the places I play in.

Don

[Zenfighter]

BJ without any type of washes.

Rules: 6dks, doa, das, rsp = 4, nrsa, nsr, bse = - 0.40%

Penetration = 43 rounds head on ~ 74.42% (43 *5.4 = 232.2)

Software used: UBE 4.0

a) 6 packs in new deck order plus a random cut. 20 million hands. After every 43 rounds,
new packs are introduced again.

WR = -1.49% SE = 0.02

What about playing craps instead?

b) 6 packs in new deck order plus a gross zone shuffle plus a random cut. 100 million hands. After every 43 rounds, new packs are introduced again.

Description: Two piles of 3 decks. A half deck from one stack is riffled with another half of the other
stack, until forming the new pile C. The cards are dropped together at this rate: 1 card 25% of the time, 2 cards 25% of the time, 3 cards 25% of the time, and finally 4 cards 25 % of the time. That?s simple the quality of the riffle while mixing both half packs.

WR = - 0.54% SE =0.01

Where are you playing here? In AC or in Europe?

Bear in mind that we?re not dealing with BJ without shuffling here, where at the end of the deal the cards are cut and deal again without any type of shuffle. As Wong demonstrated many years ago, playing BS simple put the cards in an order that works in the player?s favor. With the unrealistic no shuffle at all, we have the solo player winning steadily against the house, even with BS!

Shoehenge. Nostalgia from the 90?s. The postman wont bring our spring issue. Not this time :-(

Sincerely

Z