Sun Runner: Preferential Shuffling

[Sun Runner]

Let's go back to the original question regarding pitch games.

Define for me please the "immutable law" of penetration that Don refers to on pg 192. The one that all dealers are bound to.

[Sun Runner]

Fair enough, but now they are out of business (temporarily). Might as well let the employees clock out and go home.

It's a judgement decision they might have to make -just like the one a player makes when the shuffle ups start coming sporadically.

[Sun Runner]

> In short, don't argue that, because the
> player is permitted to do something, the
> dealer ought to be extended that same
> privilege.

Agreed.

But it is a bet made for money; a game of skill.

I want to use ALL my natural skill and ability, and then moan when they do!?

I say set the rules and let's play. They aren't going to "cheat" you more than a round or two and then your gone.

The civilians will FINALLY figure out that "you just can't beat that place" (they may not know why, but they will figure it out) and finally quit them too.

In the end the casino will have to offer a game that is playable by all. Preferential shuffling will take care of itself.

And in the end, the casino has the ultimate trump card anyway -they just bar you for good.

In thinking it through, I would prefer they preferential shuffle to me, so that I have to move on -that day -rather than 86 me for good.

(and BTW, I already asked for Parker's opinion, what is the "immutable law" of penetration?)

As always, with much respect ...

SR

[G Man]

You are playing a 6 decks shoe game with one deck cut out of play. After 2 decks are dealt, you have a Hi-Lo of +8 wich translate in a TC of +2.

Now, would you prefer the dealer to shuffle on you or play the game till you reach the cut card ? In a game where preferential shuffling is allowed you are dead. THE DEALER CAN SHUFFLE ANYTIME. In this example, if the dealer has to deal untill he reaches the cut card, you are playing with an advantage. Now tell how you can seriously compare the cut card effect with preferential shuffling. WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN but this has little to do with "real" preferential shuffling.

[Norm Wattenberger]

I said "But then again. The cut-card also forces an imbalance. Seems to me that using a cut card is preferential shuffling."

Obviously it is not as bad as always shuffling away high counts. And, preferential shuffling doesn't necesarily mean all positive counts. But, it still has the effect of forcing fewer rounds with positive counts - the same as preferential shuffling.

[ET Fan]

And, preferential shuffling is as pure a form of cheating as exists in a casino.

Aw c'mon. How bout when a dealer deliberately takes your money after you've won the hand? Not as pure?? Doesn't exist???

ETF

[Don Schlesinger]

> Obviously it is not as bad as always
> shuffling away high counts. And,
> preferential shuffling doesn't necesarily
> mean all positive counts. But, it still
> has the effect of forcing fewer rounds with
> positive counts - the same as preferential
> shuffling.

In concept, you are correct. All that remains is to quantify the two effects, to put things in perspective. If all positive counts were shuffled away, we know we'd be playing with a substantial, several percent disadvantage in a shoe game. On the other hand, the CCE, for, say, six decks can't be very much more than 0.1-0.15%.

So, in my mind, there is a huge difference between "cheating" using a shuffle card and outright, blatant cheating using preferential shuffling.

Don

[Norm Wattenberger]

Most 'preferential shuffling' in practice is not that blatant or efficient. In the most common form, the dealer doesn't count at all but shuffles when you raise your bet. But, very rarely early in a shoe game where you are more likely to see a cut card. I haven't seen many dealers that accurately count. When I have, I think they have have been more likely to shuffle late on a positive instead of early (preferentially in my favor.) But, maybe I've been lucky. Or I'm just likable

BJStats

[Norm Wattenberger]

I would also say that the overall impact on players of the cut-card effect is far more than the overall effect of preferential shuffling since the cut card is used in every casino every day.

[G Man]

> I would also say that the overall impact on
> players of the cut-card effect is far more
> than the overall effect of preferential
> shuffling since the cut card is used in
> every casino every day.

I think you have a hearing problem here...
THE CUT CARD DO NOT STOP YOU FROM PLAYING A WINNING GAME. Preferential shuffling DOES. And also, REAL PREFERENTIAL SHUFFLING is done when the dealer is COUNTING. A dealer who shuffles up on you when you jack your bets WITHOUT REGARD TO THE COUNT is giving you the keys to the casino bank.

[sighguy]

> I believe casinos should be required to deal
> a fixed number of rounds or deal until the
> appearance of a cut card. I further believe
> that if backoffs or barrings are to be
> permitted that they should not be permitted
> mid-shoe. The casino took your action when
> they had the edge, within their prescribed
> table limits, and should be required to
> continue to take bets within their posted
> limits until the shoe (or deck) concludes.
> It is their option at the conclusion to give
> more shallow penetration (insert cut card
> further to the front) if they so choose.
> Preferential shuffling is stacking the deck.

Well of course you feel that way - the same way the casinos feel the way they do. This subject will never be agreed upon by either side. I have to say Sun Runner came up with an nteresting conundrum (..A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem) to start with. It's rare that a so-called advantage player is willing to ask that sort of question. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - unless, I guess, you're the goose.

[Norm Wattenberger]

All I said was the cut-card has the same type of effect as preferential shuffling. I said nothing about the magnitude of the effect. As for "real" PS, it is what really happens. And, the implementation of PS is rarely 100% effective.

[John Lewis]

"On the other hand, the CCE, for, say, six decks can't be very much more than 0.1-0.15%." -- Schlesinger

If the CCE is that significant in 6 deck games, what do you estimate it's significance in SD and DD games? Looks like it could be pretty substantial.