Average number of 10s in play on 6D

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

I have observed in this one store that there are certain tables that seem to have very few 10s/face cards. Cut is dealer dependent and ranges from 1.2 - 1.5.

So I back counted the 10s/faces at these tables and they were 63, 69, 70, 72. Is this normal? Could the ASM be clumping cards?

I've also seen it happen several times where all 6 spots have 20s and BJs including the dealer. That would be 14 aces and 10s altogether.

Also could the ASM be set to sequence cards?

Just getting frustrated pushing out those big bets just to see more low cards come out. :-(

[bjarg]

Also could the ASM be set to sequence cards?

there's a thread in which this was thoroughly discussed. I suggest you look it up.

[Blitzkrieg]

I have observed in this one store that there are certain tables that seem to have very few 10s/face cards. Cut is dealer dependent and ranges from 1.2 - 1.5.

So I back counted the 10s/faces at these tables and they were 63, 69, 70, 72. Is this normal? Could the ASM be clumping cards?

I've also seen it happen several times where all 6 spots have 20s and BJs including the dealer. That would be 14 aces and 10s altogether.

Also could the ASM be set to sequence cards?


Just getting frustrated pushing out those big bets just to see more low cards come out. :-(

Depending on the counting system that you are using lets just assume that your counting the Ace as a high card in a 6D game. So you have 20 high cards per deck 20*6D= 120, so there are 120 high cards in 6 Decks.

Ok, you say you back counted 4 6D shoes, that's a lot of standing and counting. 63/120= 0.525*100% = 52.5% of the high cards were played during that 6D shoe. To me that seems about right. You are playing in a 6D game where there will be greater variance in the count, the house edge is slightly greater in a 6D game, and with up to 6 players in the game it seems unfavorable. You only counted 4 shoes, had you counted more I'm sure the variance would have changed with the high cards being played out. If 2 decks were assumed to be cut off, 63 high cards/212=0.297 * 100% = 29.7% but I don't know what I would assign this as.... or if it has any importance since it has happened after the fact of attaining the value of 63.

Why not stick to a 1 or 2 deck game with less people? Since you were playing on a full table were you playing during peak rush hour on the BJ table?

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

Why not stick to a 1 or 2 deck game with less people? Since you were playing on a full table were you playing during peak rush hour on the BJ table?

No SD od DD at this store.

I never play full table. Just observing behind the players.

[Blitzkrieg]

Ok.

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

Depending on the counting system that you are using lets just assume that your counting the Ace as a high card in a 6D game. So you have 20 high cards per deck 20*6D= 120, so there are 120 high cards in 6 Decks.

Ok, you say you back counted 4 6D shoes, that's a lot of standing and counting. 63/120= 0.525*100% = 52.5% of the high cards were played during that 6D shoe. To me that seems about right.

The 63 are only faces and 10s, which I counted for the exercise, no intention of wonging in.

That will be 63/96 = 66% played. Which means the remaining 33 10s/face cards are behind the cut card?? That would be half or more than half of what's there.

[21gunsalute]

I have observed in this one store that there are certain tables that seem to have very few 10s/face cards. Cut is dealer dependent and ranges from 1.2 - 1.5.

So I back counted the 10s/faces at these tables and they were 63, 69, 70, 72. Is this normal? Could the ASM be clumping cards?

I've also seen it happen several times where all 6 spots have 20s and BJs including the dealer. That would be 14 aces and 10s altogether.

Also could the ASM be set to sequence cards?

Just getting frustrated pushing out those big bets just to see more low cards come out. :-(

You counted 10's/faces for only four shoes? How do you expect such a low sample rate to tell you anything? Having said that, your results don't seem that abnormal. 72 would be what is expected for 1.5 decks cut off.

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

You counted 10's/faces for only four shoes? How do you expect such a low sample rate to tell you anything? Having said that, your results don't seem that abnormal. 72 would be what is expected for 1.5 decks cut off.

Yes, just 4 shoes after I stopped playing, before I went up to my room. Just for the heck of it.

Thanks for confirming that it wasn't abnormal results.

[Three]

Cut is dealer dependent and ranges from 1.2 - 1.5.

So I back counted the 10s/faces at these tables and they were 63, 69, 70, 72. Is this normal? Could the ASM be clumping cards?

At 1.2-1.5 decks cut off there are 4 decks played plus 1/2 deck to 4/5 of a decks before the cut card and maybe another 1/8th of a deck after the cut card. That's 64 T's for the 4 decks and anywhere from another 8 to 14 T's for the partial deck. So you should expect the average number of T's for your sample group to be between 72 and 78 with a big enough sampling. Your sample of 4 shoes is pretty small so the average of your sample at 68.5 is not far enough off to be conclusive but would merit a continued sampling. Of course if your deck estimate for the cut of is a hair small...

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

At 1.2-1.5 decks cut off there are 4 decks played plus 1/2 deck to 4/5 of a decks before the cut card and maybe another 1/8th of a deck after the cut card. That's 64 T's for the 4 decks and anywhere from another 8 to 14 T's for the partial deck. So you should expect the average number of T's for your sample group to be between 72 and 78 with a big enough sampling. Your sample of 4 shoes is pretty small so the average of your sample at 68.5 is not far enough off to be conclusive but would merit a continued sampling. Of course if your deck estimate for the cut of is a hair small...

Thanks Tthree.

The ASM tables do look really odd. The hand shuffle high limit tables ($100 min) seem to have better distribution of the high cards. Very weird. Of course I can't play the high limit just yet.

[bigplayer]

Five six deck shoes with 1.5 cutoff you should see 360 of the 480 Tens as your mean. 329 or fewer should happen only one sample in 20. 347 Tens or fewer should happen about 1 time in 4. You should see exactly 360 Tens about 2.1% of the time, more than 360 about 48.59% of the time.

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

there's a thread in which this was thoroughly discussed. I suggest you look it up.

Found this... http://blackjacktheforum.com/showthread.php?18225

Interesting...

[BJNewbeeNoMore]

Five six deck shoes with 1.5 cutoff you should see 360 of the 480 Tens as your mean. 329 or fewer should happen only one sample in 20. 347 Tens or fewer should happen about 1 time in 4. You should see exactly 360 Tens about 2.1% of the time, more than 360 about 48.59% of the time.

Appreciate your response bigplayer.