The absolute importance of the shuffle

[tezzadiver]

Hi everyone,

Just some thoughts concerning the shuffle and cut card placement.

After spending close to 1000 hours counting cards in shoe games in the UK, I have the following I would like to share and am very open to debate or criticism on the matter.

1. I have noticed that poorly shuffled cards favor me. Try this test at home. Take 4 or 6 decks (new or in proper order), give them a minor shuffle, and deal to yourself. Even better, do not shuffle them at all and then deal to yourself.

2. In a casino environment, we rarely ever start with a with a small basic strategy disadvantage of (lets say 0.45% in house favor) with good rules. Unless you are tracking shuffles, it is impossible to tell how many of those big, juicy ten/ ace cards are located behind the cut card. We are in many cases starting a shoe with a disadvantage that is much greater than the one listed according to basic strategy, which brings me to my next point -

3. I have had massive counts of up to plus 10 and more, at this point counting tells us to place big bets, yet even more smaller cards fall out as all the big cards are behind the cut card and of course the dealer is making his/ her 4,5,6 card twenties or twenty ones, while we are stuck on 17 or less. All counting does is inform you of card depletion, yet helps nothing with telling you what is behind the cut card (@75% on a shoe game that would be 78 cards not seen!!). Of course if there is no cut/ penetration card - counting would work significantly well, especially towards the end of the shoe.

4. Shoes that go nowhere and the shuffles that affect them. Call this a ploppy thing :-) or what you like, but on some tables you will not win. if the cards remain in roughly the same order after the shuffle and you have not won in the last shoe, this trend is very likely to continue and I am completely convinced that many casinos, due to their excessive shuffling procedures, washing of cards etc. produce a casino favored shuffle with a much higher house edge that what is broadcast on their table plaques! My point being that well shuffled cards with no clumps and all cards evenly distributed offer no advantage whatsoever.

I do understand the math behind counting but really, who will ever play millions of hands to see their true win rate as a counter? I feel like I have finally had an epiphany and believe the only way to truly beat shoe games is by tracking shuffles and the clumping of cards within. The only way counting works is when the count begins to drop, then those blessed tens and aces should be falling!

[DSchles]

It would be truly wonderful if this doesn't become a 100-post thread that will fast be moved to the card-clumping, voodoo page.

To the poster, a word of advice: forget your entire line of thinking! Just DON'T go there! To the 25 people who are going to feel absolutely compelled to rehash the same drivel that we've discussed 1,000 times, also do us a favor and DON'T!

Thanks.

Don

[mofungoo]

First, 1000 hours is not nearly long enough to determine the effects of shuffling on blackjack odds. Next, you need to read this:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/content/random.htm

[tezzadiver]

Wow. That is a bit extreme coming from you Don. Funnily enough I don`t happen to see it as drivel, as spending time in the pits you do tend to notice things. I have read all your books Don and appreciate your contribution. However, it is amazing how quickly someone will get shot down for suggesting that card counting does not work! What happened to freedom of speech ? - Je suis Charlie :-)

May I ask how much time you have actually spent playing at real casinos? Not including SIMS please. :-)

By all means feel free to move this to the voodoo section - that is the right of the forum owner Norm

[MJGolf]

Tezza: Don't get too sensitive. Don is just saying that this topic has been hashed and rehashed a lot of times on different threads. Do a little research and you might find some illumination there.

Now be that aside, we all have seen times when it seems that either the high cards are pouring out decreasing the count while making minimum bets OR the opposite, which you have experienced.....where the count is increasing at a fairly rapid pace and we raise our bets only for them to continue to come out for AWHILE until the order of the universe is re-instated........LOL Obviously in shoe games.

But I will also direct you to some info from Wong's Professional Blackjack book. Chap 15 entitled Shuffling. Page 222 in one of my editions; and also specifically to his writing at p. 239 about "streakiness" in shuffles. His opinion after much study and simulation reflects that not shuffling or incomplete shuffling actually results in a small benefit to the players.

These two guys are Blackjack Hall of Fame members. Their advice may be worthwhile........(obviously a GROSS understatement).

[Norm]

May I ask how much time you have actually spent playing at real casinos? Not including SIMS please. :-)

Not really good form to ask questions about another player's play. But I'll answer it for Don -- Far more hours than you have played.

In any case, when you start making comments about clumping based on anecdotal evidence, expect heat from other members.

[tezzadiver]

Tezza: Don't get too sensitive. Don is just saying that this topic has been hashed and rehashed a lot of times on different threads. Do a little research and you might find some illumination there.

Now be that aside, we all have seen times when it seems that either the high cards are pouring out decreasing the count while making minimum bets OR the opposite, which you have experienced.....where the count is increasing at a fairly rapid pace and we raise our bets only for them to continue to come out for AWHILE until the order of the universe is re-instated........LOL Obviously in shoe games.

Not being sensitive at all MJ :-)

Fact 1: There is absolutely no certainty that high cards will be coming out, even with a high count. There will of course be more high cards in the remainder of the pack, but they may well be hidden behind the cut card, therefore rendering card counting useless on that shoe, and how are we to know where they are placed unless we are tracking?

Fact 2: It is only when the count begins to drop (when the high cards are coming out) that we begin to play with an advantage. This is why I can win 10 hands in a row at minimum bet when the count drops and may well be at -10 and more and still winning consecutive hands.

Fact 3: Tracking clumped high cards and making high bets, when key cards come out, will be to our advantage. Everyone knows that high cards favor the player due to doubling, splitting opportunities and Blackjacks.

[tezzadiver]

Not really good form to ask questions about another player's play. But I'll answer it for Don -- Far more hours than you have played.

In any case, when you start making comments about clumping based on anecdotal evidence, expect heat from other members.

Thank you Norm and apologies if I have offended anyone. I do, however, see it as a relevant question. Mathematical simulations are based on "random shoes". However blackjack dealt in casinos can be a very different cup of tea. I would appreciate you explaining to me why my reasoning is "flawed".

[ohbehave]

Not being sensitive at all MJ :-)

Fact 1: There is absolutely no certainty that high cards will be coming out, even with a high count. There will of course be more high cards in the remainder of the pack, but they may well be hidden behind the cut card, therefore rendering card counting useless on that shoe, and how are we to know where they are placed unless we are tracking?

This is not true. A greater number of high cards will come into play. Thats what the True Count tells you, there are more high cards remaining in the shoe. You are thinking in the short term. For the long run, which isn't millions of rounds by the way, a greater number of large value cards will be dealt out before the cut card.

Fact 2: It is only when the count begins to drop (when the high cards are coming out) that we begin to play with an advantage. This is why I can win 10 hands in a row at minimum bet when the count drops and may well be at -10 and more and still winning consecutive hands.

Also, not true. After a True Count is established it will remain very close to the same through the end of the shoe.

[Norm]

CVData allows you to define shuffles instead of using random shuffles.

[Casino Kid]

Just thought I'd chime in before this gets moved. OP, you say you understand all the math involved so I thought that since I have the day off and am killing time on the site I would try to dust off some of my 5th grade probability.

You're situation involves a TC of +10. Let's say you're playing in a game that's dealt 5/6 and down to one deck. One extreme case is that there are 0L-42N-10H left. Your probability of getting two high cards is (10/52 x 9/51) which is 3.34%. At the other extreme all the neutrals are gone and there are 21L-31H remaining in the last deck with RC/TC = 10. (31/52 x 30/51) = 35.1%. Also note that drawing two highs doesn't guarantee you a win or even push so your win rate will be lower. So is it unfair if you have a max bet out at +10 and you don't get two highs or is it that you only had a roughly 1/3 chance of drawing it in the first place at best?

It seems to me that the best you can do is play the odds. At the top of the shoe the probability of drawing two highs (120/312 x 119/311) is 14.72%.

At 1.5 decks and TC=10 left the extremes (0L-63N-15H and 32L-0N-46H) yield a similar 3.4%-34.4%.

I guess my approach isn't perfect because the dealer/other players are getting their cards in between the two you're dealt and may the experts correct me. But it seems that if you're playing heads up then the probabilities for the high percentage 1 deck case would be:
(31/52 x 29/50) = 34.5% - you and dealer drew a high
(31/52 x 30/50) = 35.7% - you drew a high and dealer drew a low

Not exactly favorable russian roulette odds in either case.

[Gronbog]

Mathematical simulations are based on "random shoes". However blackjack dealt in casinos can be a very different cup of tea. I would appreciate you explaining to me why my reasoning is "flawed".

Not necessarily true. Many simulators have the ability to simulate the shuffling, cutting, dealing, playing, and collecting of the actual cards according to common casino procedures. Even without all that, card counting simulations must simulate reshuffling after the cut card and so the results of those simulations account for the fact that that cards you want are sometimes trapped behind it.

[tezzadiver]

This is not true. A greater number of high cards will come into play. Thats what the True Count tells you, there are more high cards remaining in the shoe. You are thinking in the short term. For the long run, which isn't millions of rounds by the way, a greater number of large value cards will be dealt out before the cut card.



Also, not true. After a True Count is established it will remain very close to the same through the end of the shoe.

I beg to differ ohbehave - How do the high cards come into play if they are hidden behind the cut card? Of course a true positive count tells us there are more high cards in the shoe, unfortunately it does not tell us exactly where they are located. What is your definition of the long run?