Burn Card

[Joe Mama]

If you can't see it. it reduces penetration by one card. Insignificant in 6 or 8 deck shoes, ~1% in DD.

[Bubbles]

It's just one card. Don't sweat it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Freightman]

It's just one card. Don't sweat it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Don't think if it as 1 card from a sd,dd,6d, etc, but rather as 1 Addl card of deck pen as in
.75/2,5.5/6.

Of little consequence to a medium or poor deck pen, but of significant consequence in deep pen for the number squeezers.

The significance becomes evident in the final portions of the shoe.

[BJPloppy]

Don't think if it as 1 card from a sd,dd,6d, etc, but rather as 1 Addl card of deck pen as in
.75/2,5.5/6.

Of little consequence to a medium or poor deck pen, but of significant consequence in deep pen for the number squeezers.

The significance becomes evident in the final portions of the shoe.

I do not know how to do the math for this, but it seems to me that seeing the burn card means less than one additional card of pen. One additional card of pen will sometimes mean an additional round, while seeing the burn affords no such opportunity. Again, maybe my thinking is wrong on this point. If so, will someone please tell me where I went wrong.

[Freightman]

I do not know how to do the math for this, but it seems to me that seeing the burn card means less than one additional card of pen. One additional card of pen will sometimes mean an additional round, while seeing the burn affords no such opportunity. Again, maybe my thinking is wrong on this point. If so, will someone please tell me where I went wrong.

Knowing the burn card gives you 1 more card to count. The significance of that deep in a deeply dealt shoe is self evident. The same concept, as Moses can attest to, is the value of a known single card in a deeply dealt single deck game. It's huge. It means the difference between a super max, max, big, slightly positive, neutral, slightly negative and hugely negative bet. Further, there is an impact on playing decisions.

Perhaps 3 can regale us with a modest 8 paragraph explanation, containing mostly irrelavent baloney, on the concept.

[BJPloppy]

Knowing the burn card gives you 1 more card to count. The significance of that deep in a deeply dealt shoe is self evident

I apologize, I don't think I made my point clearly. I was not implying the information is of no value. My point is that it I don't believe it is of the same value as moving the cut card back one card.
In other words, let's stipulate that we are in a 6 deck game with a cutoff of 78 cards.
If you were offered a choice; would you
(1) Prefer to be shown the burn card each shoe, or
(2) Would you choose to not see the burn card but instead have the cut card moved so there are only 77 cards behind it?

My point is, I believe moving the cut card back is greater EV than knowing the value of the burn card. My intuition also tells me that the deeper the pen, the more this holds true. Again, I am going by intuition which can sometimes lead one astray. That is why I noted that I have not figured this out mathematically. Actually, as I write this response, I think maybe I will figure it out after I take care of some other business.

[Freightman]

I apologize, I don't think I made my point clearly. I was not implying the information is of no value. My point is that it I don't believe it is of the same value as moving the cut card back one card.
In other words, let's stipulate that we are in a 6 deck game with a cutoff of 78 cards.
If you were offered a choice; would you
(1) Prefer to be shown the burn card each shoe, or
(2) Would you choose to not see the burn card but instead have the cut card moved so there are only 77 cards behind it?

My point is, I believe moving the cut card back is greater EV than knowing the value of the burn card. My intuition also tells me that the deeper the pen, the more this holds true. Again, I am going by intuition which can sometimes lead one astray. That is why I noted that I have not figured this out mathematically. Actually, as I write this response, I thik maybe I will figure it out after I take care of some other business.

If the cut card is always placed at 78 cards, and you don't see the burn card, they're 79 unseen cards. If you see the burn card, they're 78 unseen cards. Should be easy to reason from there.

Mind you, if it's still confusing, perhaps 3 can write a 4 page treatise, spouting mostly useless commentary to say basically, what I've said in the sentence above.

[Freightman]

Does the sims let you choose whether or not you see the burn card? When you set the pen it should put the cut card in the same place whether you see the cut card or not. So not seeing the cut card is viewed as one more card for undealt deck estimations it doesn't actually effect pen. It just affects the RC by plus or minus 1 (hilo) for TC conversions as compared with seeing the cut card. It really has no affect on betting until you get well below 2 decks unseen. It's affect on playing hands would only be significant for less than 1 deck unseen. Changing the pen by one card is not the same as not seeing the cut card. One more card in front of the cut card may get you another round. One more card behind the cut card that really isn't behind the cut card will not get you another round. So to sim it you would use the same pen and change whether you count the cut card or not, if the sims are capable of such subtleties. Were the sims that quoted results actually simming seeing the cut card versus not seeing the cut card or were they sims of one more card of penetration? These are not the same things. One more card of penetration would be worth a lot more at deep pen.

3, have a look at sentence 1, post 23. Says somewhat more briefly than your yawner above. Now, have a look at sentence 2. You've surpassed expectation.

[BJPloppy]

One more card in front of the cut card may get you another round. One more card behind the cut card that really isn't behind the cut card will not get you another round

Thanks Three. You have more succinctly expressed what I was trying to say. I usually think I am capable of making myself clear, but in this case I obviously failed.

I tried to use CVCX to figure out the difference we have been discussing, but it will not allow me to use the same data and compare a seen burn card and an unseen burn card. I am able to change the depth of the cut card, but I would have to run another sim with the same rules to see the effect of knowing the burn card.

[BJPloppy]

If the cut card is always placed at 78 cards, and you don't see the burn card, they're 79 unseen cards. If you see the burn card, they're 78 unseen cards. Should be easy to reason from there.

Mind you, if it's still confusing, perhaps 3 can write a 4 page treatise, spouting mostly useless commentary to say basically, what I've said in the sentence above.

Please don't think I am trying to be antagonistic here. I am trying to figure out what you think I am confused about. Once I know that, I can do a better job of explaining my point. To anyone else reading this string that seems to go nowhere, I apologize. Maybe I will have to take lessons from Don on how to express myself better. :-)

I also apologize for hijacking this thread. This does not directly answer the OP.

[Freightman]

Please don't think I am trying to be antagonistic here. I am trying to figure out what you think I am confused about. Once I know that, I can do a better job of explaining my point. To anyone else reading this string that seems to go nowhere, I apologize. Maybe I will have to take lessons from Don on how to express myself better. :-)

Not in the least. The simplest explanation is usually best. I said pretty much the same thing in one sentence. Many ways of expressing the concept. You'll get the drift in due course.

[Freightman]

My guess is someone of your caliber and expertise maybe has the opportunity to view this card 2,000 times annually? It's still just 1 of 312? I understand the concept of "take what they give you." But how many times do you actually see the burn card annually?

Not often enough. As you may have guessed, I was in recently in a city which showed the burn card on shoes. I view it as an omen if the burn card is lower ranked, especially the 5. Of mild irritation is seeing a face. Of major annoyance is seeing an ace.

1 card on mediocre pen is only of minor consequence. The impact of that card on 5.5/6, that's another matter.

[Freightman]

On point
No offence Don, took BJA3 to the John as reading material. I randomly opened the book to page 384. The special rules question at the bottom of that page, answered by Don on page 385, addresses the issue of eating or conserving cards, the wisdom of purposely making a mistake when advantageous to do so. And so, another plus to knowing the burn card.