BJ21.com Free Message Board

& I question the validity of the claim anyway

Posted By: DD'
Date: 18 Jan 02, 12:33 pm

In Response To: you have to see the cards (DD')

If the segments that used to be associated with a deck behind the cutcard show a higher count when seen, than the the segments that used to be associated with a prior deck, you can be certain the probability of higher cards ACTUALLY being in the deck cutoff is higher;

Let's try to break this down. "the segments that used to be associated with a deck behind the cutcard". Just as an example, we say that the first deck in the shoe and the deck behind the cut card are two segments that had been shuffled together. They were subsequently broken apart after being married. Half of this two deck section ended up behind the cut card and half remained in the front of the shoe. Let's also say that the deck in the back of the shoe, just prior to the cut card, has the relationship with the second deck in the shoe. You are saying that if the first deck in the shoe shows a higher count (meaning more low cards dealt) than the second deck of the shoe, then it means that there is a greater probability that there are more high cards behind the cut card than there are in the deck prior to the cut card.

I disagree. This infers that each of the two deck segments, 1&6, and 2&5 were balanced with each other before the shuffle. The excess small cards that you see dealt in the first deck of the shoe indicate a richness of high cards distributed throughout the entire remaining five decks. They do not indicate, or give a greater probability of, those excess high cards being among the deck with which this deck was shuffled.

What you are essentially saying is this. Take any six deck shoe and remove two sections of two decks (104 cards) each and put them next to each other on the table. From each of these two deck sections count the first 52 cards. You are saying that which ever of these two stacks has the higher running count for the first 52 cards has a greater chance of having an excess of high cards among cards 53-104. I see no logical reason for this to be so.

Post Response

Subject:
Message:

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:

If you'd like to have the option of deleting your post later,