Interesting but Unexplained Player Advantage found via CV Data

[Overkill]

In Real Shuffle, about 44,000,000 bets per round (I realize this low number of bets just gives us 'ballpark figures,' but my laptop is very slow.), I've noted an interesting phenomenon.
For 2 decks, "Cut to 1st Ace," 1 player flat betting, Complete Basic Strategy, no Counting, Round 1 is of course at about + 40% player advantage because his first card of the first round is always an Ace.

However,
Round 2 is about +. 942 player advantage!,
Round 3 is about + .890 player advantage!,
Round 4 is about + .528 player advantage!,
Round 5 is about + .167 player advantage!,
(The rest of the rounds are at a player disadvantage.).

The positive player EV for Rounds 2-5 may be because most of the time, the same Ace is the one first cut to. I don't know.

**My main question: Does this mean that the player will have an advantage for Rounds 2 -5 of those shoes (1/13 shoes) in which the first card he happens to receive (which represents the same result as when CV Data intentionally cuts to the first Ace) in the Shoe is an Ace?**

If so, perhaps he will also have an advantage for Rounds 2 - 5 of those shoes in which at least one Ace appears ANYWHERE in Round 1 of the shoe and not just being the very first card of Round 1 of the shoe?

Perhaps it depends on where the player places the cut card?

(Finally, I can't figure out how to sim the above scenario. The closest I can come is setting a Bonus for ""Player First Card" = Ace and then manually reviewing the log for the 4 rounds after this phenomenon takes place in the first round of SEVERAL BILLION SHOES. ) Any ideas?

[Overkill]

I'm at a loss! Has my post (above) really 'stumped' some of the best minds in blackjack?

Or is the post confusing? Or maybe the scenario (having a + .942 player advantage for Round 2 of 1 out of 13 shoes, etc.) isn't worth considering?

I would appreciate some feedback, if possible. It's unusual for such a post to not receive a single reply through 48 hours or so.

[BJGenius007]

In Real Shuffle, about 44,000,000 bets per round (I realize this low number of bets just gives us 'ballpark figures,' but my laptop is very slow.), I've noted an interesting phenomenon.
For 2 decks, "Cut to 1st Ace," 1 player flat betting, Complete Basic Strategy, no Counting, Round 1 is of course at about + 40% player advantage because his first card of the first round is always an Ace.

However,
Round 2 is about +. 942 player advantage!,
Round 3 is about + .890 player advantage!,
Round 4 is about + .528 player advantage!,
Round 5 is about + .167 player advantage!,
(The rest of the rounds are at a player disadvantage.).

The positive player EV for Rounds 2-5 may be because most of the time, the same Ace is the one first cut to. I don't know.

**My main question: Does this mean that the player will have an advantage for Rounds 2 -5 of those shoes (1/13 shoes) in which the first card he happens to receive (which represents the same result as when CV Data intentionally cuts to the first Ace) in the Shoe is an Ace?**

If so, perhaps he will also have an advantage for Rounds 2 - 5 of those shoes in which at least one Ace appears ANYWHERE in Round 1 of the shoe and not just being the very first card of Round 1 of the shoe?

Perhaps it depends on where the player places the cut card?

(Finally, I can't figure out how to sim the above scenario. The closest I can come is setting a Bonus for ""Player First Card" = Ace and then manually reviewing the log for the 4 rounds after this phenomenon takes place in the first round of SEVERAL BILLION SHOES. ) Any ideas?

Everything everywhere all at once will be affected by the first ace pitched to the first base player, but the accumulated advantage will be averaged down when he plays the 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand etc. Advantage will be lowered and lowered.

[Overkill]

Thanks, BJGenius007, for replying.

But WHY are there FOUR (let alone one) round(s) of player advantage following the Ace. I would expect RANDOM results (player disadvantage) for the rounds following an Ace (or any other card).

So, I guess player-favorable cards follow closely behind (4 rounds behind) Aces, or at least this particular Ace? Seems like cards are a-clumpin' to me!! (That statement alone ought to ruffle some feathers!!).

How can this be exploited in the casino?

And can we expect 4 player-favorable rounds following EVERY hand in which the first card we receive is any ol' Ace, or just following every hand in which the first card we receive is the "Cut to First Ace" Ace?

Is nobody but me surprised at this finding? Frankly, I'm shocked that this thread isn't ablaze with activity. With all due respect, please don't let pride get in the way (IF that is the case) of joining the discussion if only to say, "Wow, I don't know why this is happening. It could be that..."

[DSchles]

I think you didn't get any answers from anyone, because, like me, no one can make any sense over what was written.

Don

[Norm]

If you go to Tools-Export and send me an export, I can try to get some time to look.

[Archvaldor]

So, I guess player-favorable cards follow closely behind (4 rounds behind) Aces, or at least this particular Ace? Seems like cards are a-clumpin' to me!! (That statement alone ought to ruffle some feathers!!).

How can this be exploited in the casino?
"

First, people will just ignore if you mention card clumping. We have limited time on this earth and no one sane wishes to spend it talking about UFO's, yeti's or card clumping.

Second I'm not sure whether this is due to shuffle effects. It could be something to do with the fact that if the target ace is definitely not the first card the dealer receives. Usually when you find something interesting in a sim it is because you set it up wrong.

Third there are minor effects associated with certain types of gross shuffling. But they are purely theoretical only-highly sensitive to initial conditions and not exploitable as a practical matter. Real-world shuffles can't be modeled precisely.

[Norm]

Real-world shuffles can't be modeled precisely.

Of course they can be modeled correctly. But, precise is not the correct word to use since they aren't precise unless by a magician/card shark.

[Norm]

When playing a DD game, you need to use a DD shuffle. If you take a shoe shuffle and simply change that shuffle to two decks without changing the shuffle steps, CVData/ST will attempt to shrink the steps to fit. It won't lose any cards. But, it will not act like a reasonable DD shuffle as the steps will likely be smaller than make sense. This will introduce artifacts into the shuffle whatever your playing methodology.