Soft17: Shuffle Tracking Question

[Soft17]

Let me take a simple hypothetical shuffle - 4 Decks. Dealer deals out 3 and then stacks the remaining deck on top of the discards. Splits the pile into two and does a simple 1 pass shuffle grabbing half decks each time from the two piles before offering the player the cut card.

Now a shuffle tracker who keeps track of the count for each half deck in the discards can pretty accurately predict the count for each deck in the child shoe.

My question is: how do the dealer inaccuracies during shuffle (splitting into two and grabbing half decks) affect it? Do they average out over time or hurt in both cases (over estimation and under estimation)?

Example: if the shuffle tracker has a count of 5 for one of the decks, should he/she bet as if he had a TC of 5 during regular counting or less to account for dealer inaccuracies during shuffle?

Thanks,
Soft17.

[Geoff Hall]

> Let me take a simple hypothetical shuffle -
> 4 Decks. Dealer deals out 3 and then stacks
> the remaining deck on top of the discards.
> Splits the pile into two and does a simple 1
> pass shuffle grabbing half decks each time
> from the two piles before offering the
> player the cut card.

> Now a shuffle tracker who keeps track of the
> count for each half deck in the discards can
> pretty accurately predict the count for each
> deck in the child shoe.

> My question is: how do the dealer
> inaccuracies during shuffle (splitting into
> two and grabbing half decks) affect it? Do
> they average out over time or hurt in both
> cases (over estimation and under
> estimation)?

> Example: if the shuffle tracker has a count
> of 5 for one of the decks, should he/she bet
> as if he had a TC of 5 during regular
> counting or less to account for dealer
> inaccuracies during shuffle?

> Thanks,
> Soft17.

If you play a 4-deck game and know that one of the decks is, say, +6, then you have to assume that the other 3 remaining decks are a total of -6 (or -2 per deck).

So if the tracked deck is shuffled with another deck you get an overall total of +6 + -2 = +4 for those 2 decks.

Now you are playing a 2-deck slug with a count of +4. There is a more indepth calculation as to how to calculate the true count during the play of these 2 decks although, for simplicity, you can bet as though it is a +4 starting point.

Best regards

Geoff

[ET Fan]

Betting high into an obscenely high pseudo-TC (ex, you started one of those decks at RC = +5, and it winds up at +4 with four cards remaining, so TC = +52). So you "shoot the pickle" and play table max, only to realize when you get your T-5 that your slug estimation was off two or three.

Most important thing in tracking is to know your limits. That's why I have a limit of one response per tracking question.

ETF

> Let me take a simple hypothetical shuffle -
> 4 Decks. Dealer deals out 3 and then stacks
> the remaining deck on top of the discards.
> Splits the pile into two and does a simple 1
> pass shuffle grabbing half decks each time
> from the two piles before offering the
> player the cut card.

> Now a shuffle tracker who keeps track of the
> count for each half deck in the discards can
> pretty accurately predict the count for each
> deck in the child shoe.

> My question is: how do the dealer
> inaccuracies during shuffle (splitting into
> two and grabbing half decks) affect it? Do
> they average out over time or hurt in both
> cases (over estimation and under
> estimation)?

> Example: if the shuffle tracker has a count
> of 5 for one of the decks, should he/she bet
> as if he had a TC of 5 during regular
> counting or less to account for dealer
> inaccuracies during shuffle?

> Thanks,
> Soft17.

[Sun Runner]

> Example: if the shuffle tracker has a count
> of 5 for one of the decks, should he/she bet
> as if he had a TC of 5 during regular
> counting or less to account for dealer
> inaccuracies during shuffle?

Blackbelt in Blackjack has a great chapter on ST'ing. If I recall Snyder correctly he states the biggest mental problem a counter might have with ST'ing is not being able to be exact in it's application.

I think he eventually recomends a conservative 50% approach -if you believe your first deck after the shuffle to be TC +6 .. play it like TC+3.