Hello Mr. Carlson,

I have read (repeatedly!) your blog on Card Clumping on this Forum from June 2, 2012: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/en...-Bryce-Carlson.
Thank you for your contribution!

I am a proponent of card clumping. If I am not mistaken (that is, if I am not just 'getting lucky,') I have employed it successfully under very controlled conditions in casinos. Unfortunately, I believe what I do in the casino is very different from what many think I may be doing.

My latest thread can be seen roughly 12 posts below this post and is entitled"Using CV Data to Simulate No Shuffle Blackjack."

I have been trying, as much as is possible, to compare apples to apples by trying to reconcile Stanford Wong's no shuffle research found in "Professional Blackjack" with Arnold Snyder's similar research with my work using CV Data. I realize your study did not concern no shuffling but rather random shuffling and various 'thoroughnesses' of shufflling.

Also, I understand you conducted the research more than 12 years ago, but here are some questions:

1) In your article, I cannot find any mention of slugs (plugs). My primary question: After each shoe, did your computer program insert, for example, 3 plugs taken from each shoe's pile of unused cards into the large pile of discarded (used) cards in the discard rack?

2) Stanford apparently employeda'lay and pay' dealer methodology for an unknown reason (maybe because it was 1977). For those that don't know, lay and pay is different from today's "pick and pay." With pick and pay, THE DEALER'S CARDS END UP ON THE TOP (AND FACE DOWN, OF COURSE) OF THE DISCARD PILE AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH ROUND. So, to be clear, ALL PLAYERS' CARDS END UP UNDERNEATH (AND FACE DOWN, OF COURSE) THE DEALER'S CARDS AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH ROUND. Did your study employ pick and pay?

3) Finally, to the best of your recollection, are the following true of your study:

a) Regarding how a player's cards themselves are ordered (face down) in the discard pile: the last card received by the player is below the first card received, with any other cards in between. So, if a player's first card is a 4 and her second card is a 9 and her last card is a 5, her cards in the discard pile would be ordered (face down) in the following manner, from top to bottom: 4-9-5.

b) Regarding how the dealer's cards themselves are ordered (face down) in the discard pile: the dealer's hole card is below the up card, which is below any hit cards, which are (is) below the last card received. So, if a dealer's hole card is a 3 and her up card is a 4 and her first hit card is a 2 and her second hit card is a 5 and her last card received is a 6, his cards in the discard pile would be ordered (face down) in the following manner, from top to bottom: 6-5-2-4-3.

4) I am assuming in Stanford's study that the dealer's hole card was received AFTER the dealer's first card (up card). And I am assuming the dealer picked up the (face up) cards of multiple players in order from the dealer's right to the dealer's left and not vice-versa. Are these two procedures consistent with your study?

I fully understand questions 3 and 4 above are very detail-oriented, but of course when working with card clumping (and shuffletracking), one small deviation or change from a step in a procedure will probably change the outcome.

Thank you in advance if you are able to address the above.

Finally, I welcome a private email: Feel free to email me at [email protected].