Blackjack 2:1 with CSM

[Archvaldor]

Great remark indeed

On topic: Do CSMs affect blackjack frequency in any meaningful way beyond normal variance?

Different house edge calculators evaluate the player's advantage from 1.6 to 1.9 percent, assuming 6 deck game with no surrender.

It will increase the blackjack frequency by making the game faster, otherwise it will have no impact.

[Norm]

Do CSMs affect blackjack frequency in any meaningful way beyond normal variance

Yes, due to the lack of cut card effect. CSMs actually improve the odds for basic strategy players. https://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm

[Freightman]

Is it kosher?

Yes, as long as the Chourico is from Borneo where the Chazerai chews their own cud

https://youtu.be/IVGDgSvSk9s?si=yd7GimQ0GgK0mX-S

[21forme]

Are CSMs?

I've never eaten a CSM.
But I have seen CSMs eat cards.

[Archvaldor]

Yes, due to the lack of cut card effect. CSMs actually improve the odds for basic strategy players. https://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm

That isn't "meaningful" as Maolen asked, in any practical sense. You have a large advantage with or without a cut-card effect.

Additionally I've never liked that analysis. The implicit assumption seems to be that using a csm is equivalent to shuffling after every hand.

A description of how a specific csm works is given here:
https://discountgambling.net/2012/07...-blackjack-ev/

It is rather more complicated than the assumption of shuffling after every hand. There will be some kind of bias caused by the unique way the cards are redistributed. It may well be insignificant, or work to the advantage of the player, but you'd have to sim it to have a definitive answer.

Either way I cannot for the life of me understand why so many card counters insist on telling everyone that csm's are better for the basic strategist, especially based on speculative evidence. It is obviously not in your own interest to promote that view.

[Norm]

The implicit assumption seems to be that using a csm is equivalent to shuffling after every hand.

That may be the assumption of most folks. Never been mine. Although it is not in the public user interface, CVData has the ability to sim the One2Six with its original software with different related settings and operation, and that was my result. It is also the determination of Shack and some others. The One2Six software has changed since then and I haven't bothered to keep up with the changes. But nothing I've heard sounds likely to have changed this overall effect for a BS player. As for my own interest, it has always been to state what my studies have determined.

[bjarg]

Either way I cannot for the life of me understand why so many card counters insist on telling everyone that csm's are better for the basic strategist, especially based on speculative evidence. It is obviously not in your own interest to promote that view.

I agree. In the real world and outside of all the useless theoretical and math analysis, the best thing for a basic strategy player or anybody playing at a disadvantage is a slow game, which doesnt happen with CSMs.

[Norm]

the best thing for a basic strategy player

Or not to play. Yes that statement is true if you only take into account average expected win/loss per hour. But it depends on why the gambler is gambling. If he is an action junkie, speed is desired. You can see much excitement at Craps. And gamblers like variance because variance is part of the thrill. A thrilling football game has its ups and downs. Lotteries are extremely slow and have terrible odds. They are so popular because they allow the player to dream. I've probably related this before: in a Poker game in which I took part; many, many hours into the game, one of the regular players was even. He commented that after so many hours, it would be better to be behind as it would at least show some movement after all that time. It wasn't serious -- but can be part of the gambler mindset.

In the real world and outside of all the useless theoretical and math analysis

The real world can be simmed. Before they are built, they sim dams, airplanes, large bridges, super tall buildings. They sim hurricanes, workflow, geophysical fluid dynamics, nuclear reactions, space rockets, subatomic particles. Certainly blackjack can be studied. You will never convince me that "theoretical and math analysis is useless".

[iCountNTrack]

That isn't "meaningful" as Maolen asked, in any practical sense. You have a large advantage with or without a cut-card effect.

Additionally I've never liked that analysis. The implicit assumption seems to be that using a csm is equivalent to shuffling after every hand.

A description of how a specific csm works is given here:
https://discountgambling.net/2012/07...-blackjack-ev/

It is rather more complicated than the assumption of shuffling after every hand. There will be some kind of bias caused by the unique way the cards are redistributed. It may well be insignificant, or work to the advantage of the player, but you'd have to sim it to have a definitive answer.

Either way I cannot for the life of me understand why so many card counters insist on telling everyone that csm's are better for the basic strategist, especially based on speculative evidence. It is obviously not in your own interest to promote that view.

If a CSM is generating a more random shuffle than a hand held shuffle, the basic strategy player will be at an advantage. Poorly shuffles have a negative effect for BS player.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...trategy-player

[katto70]

I apologize very much. My friend did not give me the correct information. The Promotion from the Casino ist every last friday in the month, that they pays Blackjack 2:1 only for suited Blackjacks. Sorry.

[bjarg]

If a CSM is generating a more random shuffle than a hand held shuffle, the basic strategy player will be at an advantage. Poorly shuffles have a negative effect for BS player.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...trategy-player

CSM shuffles are far from random (whatever that word means).

[DSchles]

To the naysayers above, I'd ask a slightly different question, whose (correct) answer will, I'm sure, support Norm's, Shack's, and my understanding of the game. If you had to bet a million dollars on playing 100 rounds of non-counting, flat-betting BS against a hand-shuffled shoe (with a stop card) or a CSM, which should you bet on?

Oh.

Don

[moo321]

With 2 to 1 on suited blackjacks, it's about a breakeven game, depending on rules. You can't do much with the count on a CSM, so you're left going beyond counting, and beating them with the card.