CMS without quick replacement

**BramSToker** · 11-01-2014, 01:09 PM

Hey guys first post here, I'm a somewhat advanced player, I'm good at keeping count and know basic strategy but i don't play consistently or keep track of my winnings in spreadsheets. Anyway, since I don't have access to the real counting forum I'll put it here and make it more general.
I am current living in Buenos Aires and there are regulations and such in the city itself (Capital Federal) so I usually go to the ship casino in the port, which is pretty nice. Unfortunately, the bj rules aren't the best. Dealer stands on 17 which I think helps but also there is a CSM on every one of the two floors' tables I've checked out. Its possible the high stakes have manual but I may not have enough bankroll for that.
Anyway I know the general implications of csm, I've read that it actually lowers the casino advantage a degree for basic strategy users but what about the count? I realize if it were immediate replacement it would be virtually uncountable, but here it is weird and quasi-random and depends on the dealer. I've seen some let as much as 4-5 decks build up, in extreme cases, but mostly its just 1-2 decks before they put it back into the machine. Is there a way then to count then just focusing on the beginning of the shoe? There's 6 decks or so they claim. Thanks guys!

**BJGenius007** · 11-01-2014, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by BramSToker

Anyway I know the general implications of csm, I've read that it actually lowers the casino advantage a degree for basic strategy users but what about the count?

Is there a way then to count then just focusing on the beginning of the shoe? There's 6 decks or so they claim. Thanks guys!

There is no way for traditional AP to count against these Continuous Shuffling Machines. As CSM is better for non-AP, you are wrong. Equally bad. You are just playing a new fresh shoe for every hand.

**Three** · 11-01-2014, 02:40 PM

THe penetration ends when the cards are put back into the machine. You can view this as the shuffle. You must know how many decks are in the CSM to make much use of counting. The pen will just suck. If a dealer lets 4 to 5 decks build up in the discards on a 6 deck game it is about the same as most shoe games. Anything less is not good.

**paymypush** · 11-02-2014, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by BJGenius007

There is no way for traditional AP to count against these Continuous Shuffling Machines. As CSM is better for non-AP, you are wrong. Equally bad. You are just playing a new fresh shoe for every hand.

BramSToker is correct. The house edge is lower on a CSM for the basic strategy player. It's made up for by the increase in hands per hour so frequent and longer breaks are required to offset it.

**bjarg** · 11-02-2014, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by BramSToker

I'm a somewhat advanced player.

Originally Posted by BramSToker

I usually go to the ship casino in the port, which is pretty nice.

Those two sentences are contradictory.
If you were an advanced player (even an intermediate one), you wouldnt set foot in that casino ever.

**Marvin** · 11-02-2014, 03:02 PM

Stephen How has an article on discountgambling.net on counting CSMs.
http://discountgambling.net/2012/07/...-blackjack-ev/

Although positive EV, it's generally not worth the time unless the game is close to breakeven or gives you an edge off the top due to the rules. If dealers let 4+ decks pile up then you can treat it as a shoe game.

**Norm** · 11-02-2014, 04:47 PM

Read the article. It appears to rely on an incorrect, simplistic idea of the 126 workings.

**Aslan** · 11-02-2014, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by paymypush

BramSToker is correct. The house edge is lower on a CSM for the basic strategy player. It's made up for by the increase in hands per hour so frequent and longer breaks are required to offset it.

I've found one continuous break works best.

**Marvin** · 11-03-2014, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

Read the article. It appears to rely on an incorrect, simplistic idea of the 126 workings.

Norm,

Are you saying that there is no 'buffer' in the 126 machines and thus effectively no delay from reinserting the cards to the cards being available?
In other words, it's possible that one or more of the cards that were just scooped up can be dealt in the next round (as one of the next dozen or so cards out of the CSM)?

Marv

**BramSToker** · 11-03-2014, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by bjarg

Those two sentences are contradictory.
If you were an advanced player (even an intermediate one), you wouldnt set foot in that casino ever.

Haha didn't expect this much play in the thread, you from around here? Im sure you'd know then that its the only one with live table games in the city. I've been meaning to get to Tigre to see that one but haven't yet so I'm making due.

Thanks for the other answers guys, as someone wisely pointed out, I was referring to house edge being marginally lower, I know it is also a faster game. I hadnt done much research into the research that proposed that.

**Norm** · 11-03-2014, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Marvin

Norm,

Are you saying that there is no 'buffer' in the 126 machines and thus effectively no delay from reinserting the cards to the cards being available?
In other words, it's possible that one or more of the cards that were just scooped up can be dealt in the next round (as one of the next dozen or so cards out of the CSM)?

Marv

Not at all. There is essentially double-buffering.

**Dieter** · 11-03-2014, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Aslan

I've found one continuous break works best.

Now that you mention it, I just realized I haven't lost a hand since I left the table.

**Goodboy** · 11-04-2014, 05:45 AM

Indeed at first it sounded like someone who found the Holy Grail for APs... But looking at the posting date and the lack of discussion in the community ever since, I guess I have to still wait for it, lol

Enviado desde mi MK16a usando Tapatalk 2