Thanks very much Don. Will do.
Ian
Thanks very much Don. Will do.
Ian
Mr. Anderson,
Thank you very much for your participation on the site. I'm sure I speak for everyone.
< I was short-shoed on a cruise ship about 15 years ago. >
May I ask how you ascertained that you were short-shoed? How severely do you think the shoe was shorted?
Moderately or severely shorted decks or shoes would quickly become obvious with attention to the end of deal counts. However, as you know, removal of just one 10 per deck decreases the player advantage by 0.51%. Thus removal of just one 10 per deck would severely erode the advantage for many of us. I would think that positive identification of such mildly shorted decks might be difficult.
What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you,
John Lewis
> Mr. Andersen,
Please call me Ian thanks.
> May I ask how you ascertained that you
> were short-shoed? How severely do you think
> the shoe was shorted?
It was actually rather humorous. The cruise ship had only 2 bj tables and a $5-$50 limit. Not being afraid of being barred, I spread $5 on 1 hand to 7 hands at $50 each. I arrived on opening and played until it got busy about 2-3 hours later. After the first 2 days I was up about 4 grand, apparently an astronomical sum for this small cruise casino.
On the third night I arrived to find the decks already shuffled and in the shoes. On prior nights fresh decks of cards had been spread on the table. I inquired about this "sudden" shift in policy. I was told something like "it saves time." Since I was the only one there, this excuse held no water. My request to see the cards was denied as "an unnecessary waste of time."
Needless to say, I was already maximally suspicious, but played out the charade. I flat bet $5/hand for 6-7 consecutive shoes, as the count zoomed up into the teens and twenties (hi-lo) in each shoe. I quit at that point and played no further on the cruise.
I think, in this case, ten-value cards had been taken out of the deck and replaced with babies, as the six deck pile, to my eye, did not appear to be abnormal.
> Moderately or severely shorted decks or
> shoes would quickly become obvious with
> attention to the end of deal counts.
> However, as you know, removal of just one 10
> per deck decreases the player advantage by
> 0.51%. Thus removal of just one 10 per deck
> would severely erode the advantage for many
> of us. I would think that positive
> identification of such mildly shorted decks
> might be difficult.
> What are your thoughts on this?
You are quite correct. This could be done and would be quite detrimental and virtually impossible to detect. Worse yet, it could be claimed as a "casino error" if discovered by a gaming inspector, if it only happened "rarely." Fortunately, the times I've been cheated (that I know of) have been obvious, but subtle cheating, like you mention, is certainly conceivable especially in unregulated environments.
If you're suspicious about a joint, its probably best to play only after new cards are brought in, although some casinos around the world now bring in "pre-checked" decks which are shuffled without being spread.
Regards,
Ian
>
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks