Is it feasible to sequence an 8-deck triple R&R?
If the answer is yes then what is the optimum number of key cards?
I am aware that the more decks you have, the more qualifiers you need.
I would have thought triple keying is out of the question � the minimum intact sequence required would be 25 cards. Even two keys are a stretch, is single keying worthwhile?
Fairy Nuff
In my opinion 1-pass is perfect, 2-pass is doable, 3-pass is not worth the effort. In a perfect 1-pass shuffle, there will be one card shuffled between your keys, in a 2-pass there will be 3 cards between the keys, and in a 3-pass there will be 7 cards between each key. Now say you are triple keying, as you say you need a 25 card sequence, and this is sure to be broken up in the shuffle. Even a double key needs a sequence length of 17 cards, still very likely to be broken up. That leaves single key with a sequence length of 9 cards, the problem here is that when your key card comes out, there is a 1 in 8 chance that the card is not the one you wanted unless you can track a slug to increase your accuracy. And even if you do pick the correct key there is a good chance that the sequence may have been broken by the shuffle. So my advice is to not bother using location methods with this shuffle.
Thanks Keymaster
"So my advice is to not bother using location methods with this shuffle."
Yes, ordinarily I would agree with you, however, this particular game has some other quite useful extras.
Would I be correct in saying that (assuming an intact 9 card sequence) our advantage per single keyed ace is (52%/8) or 6.5%?
Also one would be able to remember far more sequences, am I on the right track?
Fairy Nuff
Would I be correct in saying that (assuming an intact 9 card sequence) our advantage per single keyed ace is (52%/8) or 6.5%?
You need to be thinking more in terms of a high true count than the 52% first-card-is-an-ace figure. The problem is that the dealer has an increased chance of getting an ace also, and you are at a whopping 35% disadvantage when the dealer gets it.
However, compensatory factors exist.
Assuming your counting, your gain from sequencing will be lesser in negative counts, but greater in positive counts.
Its a myth that 3-pass shuffles cannot be sequenced, one I am quite happy to perpetuate. Its not quite that simple however. As with all forms of shuffle-tracking, actually watching the dealer is a big part of the equation. Its amazing just how much you can improve your prediction by making the roughest of assessments as to whether the riffle was clean or not-clean riffling will make your prediction much more accurate. A hypothetically perfect riffle leaves the cards in a completely deterministic order.
Also, pro sequencers tend to fortify the prediction further by measuring the frequency of the riffle. The quality of the riffle is closely correlated with its exact frequency (see Epstein's Theory Of Gambling And Statistical Logic). The sequencer player measures it against the length of a mental cadence (phrase or song fragment of exact length) or records it with a device (illegal, not recommended) and determines just how much chaos is in the riffle. The most unlikely games can be sequenced with this method.
This is not something I would normally recommend for a neophyte sequencer, but if you are going to attempt to take on a 3-pass you need to know all the tricks.
Sequencing a triple riffle R&R is a waste of time. For one thing, if you really do have a one pass 8D R&R, it's almost surely vulnerable to slug tracking. If you can track slugs, and count for the next shoe, shoe after shoe, and sequence as well, you surely don't need advice from anyone on this page! The slug tracking is going to be a heck of a lot easier and FAR more lucrative, in this case.
Even just Wonging is going to bring you much more than sequencing a triple (think tenths of a %, forget 6.5), and the two techniques are pretty much mututally exclusive.
ETF
I agree with the general conclusion.
Even just Wonging is going to bring you much more than sequencing a triple (think tenths of a %, forget 6.5), and the two techniques are pretty much mututally exclusive.
This might be the case if the gentleman puts on a blindfold every time the cards are riffled. You cannot pretend the gentleman can track slugs, which is impossible or suicidally risky without visual information, or can perform TC division based on an estimate of decks remaining, and somehow not make use of visual information for sequencing purposes.
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses, they are much appreciated.
Perhaps I could put the situation another way: -
Let�s say that for whatever reason this hypothetical 8-deck 3 pass R&R is the only game in town.
I am a very high roller (multi thousands)
Respectable ROL (rebate-on-loss) incentive.
Heads-up under VIP conditions.
Wonging (obviously) out of the question.
Counting, even a-la Andersen is risky.
Given that: -
I am going to play the ROL anyway.
The riffle is as good as it gets
I have reasonable eyeballing skills
I am able to remember a lot of single-key sequences
Are those single-keyed aces still not worth the effort?
I apologize for laboring the point, I will not ask again.
Fairy Nuff
Normally 8deckers are not very well shuffled (until they suspect you).
Too many of the same card to key. High error rate.
Even if the shuffle was so consistent, I prefer to do it with a team.
You only need to cut out a highly bad positive (or negative, depending on how you think) segment to get a consistent edge. You do have the BR to stand the fluc which will still be higher than other games.
Don't even need to spread, should have no risk.
I must confess that I don't know people who do a lot of sequencing. So maybe I am exposing my ignorance �
But you say that "Counting, even a-la Andersen is risky." � I gathered that you thought they would notice that you were counting. But somehow you think sequencing is OK.
Now as I understand sequencing, top be effective you need to make HUGE bet jumps. They are not correlated with the count, but they the betting is still very noticeable. I would think that would draw a lot more attention than counting.
Across the river from us, in Windsor, they busted a sequencing team, back in the middle 90s. By "busted", I don't mean 86; I mean they brought in the polic and arrested them. It was written up in BJF.
The huge bet jumps were what got there attention. The pit thought "they must be counting" since no ordinary player jumps the bet from $25 to $3000 and then back to $25. Obviously, the pit doesn't understand counting. But my point is that they won't necessarily know what you are doing, but they will know that you are doing something.
Thanks for your input MathProf, although I think I am probably the one who doesn�t understand.
This is (was) my thought process: -
Playing �A-la Andersen� is going to show up on the graph as bearing a strong correlation to the falling count.
Slug tracking also. (See footnote)
Catching a lot of aces with huge bets is also going to ring bells but I figured catching one in 8 would take some figuring out as long as it was worthwhile and showed a reasonable positive EV
Fairy Nuff
This three pass R&R appears to dilute the grabs very efficiently. I wouldn�t have thought it would be worth slug tracking anyway.
But you say that "Counting, even a-la Andersen is risky." � I gathered that you thought they would notice that you were counting. But somehow you think sequencing is OK.
That is not completely unreasonable. Very few people on the opposite side of the baize understand how sequencing works.
Now as I understand sequencing, top be effective you need to make HUGE bet jumps. They are not correlated with the count, but they the betting is still very noticeable. I would think that would draw a lot more attention than counting.
Well, gain from sequencing and the required spread to beat the game is a function of many variables. Under the most optimal of circumstances the level of prediction for each card would be quite high. If you have an 80% (yes, such games exist) chance of snagging an ace no bet spread at all is required to profit, even in an eight-deck game.
Generally speaking, if a huge spread or bet jump is required the game is not worth playing, as in this case, just as the same is true for counters against the majority of games with awful penetration.
A further point: if a sequencer player keeps his bet spread relatively small he will be underbetting. He can then raise his absolute bet size to compensate for a similar ROR to a player who is not restrained by cover considerations. Previous studies of location play tend to ignore this possibility and consequently understate the potential gain from the method.
The huge bet jumps were what got there attention. The pit thought "they must be counting" since no ordinary player jumps the bet from $25 to $3000 and then back to $25. Obviously, the pit doesn't understand counting. But my point is that they won't necessarily know what you are doing, but they will know that you are doing something.
The report is given on my homepage through the link below. The team were using a count/sequencing hybrid method. It may have been the counting that tipped the pit off. Or, if as you say, the bet spread was the key, the bet spread may have been as much to boost gain from the count as from sequencing. Or indeed, since they were arrested for using beads, apparently a "device" the pit may have been tipped off by physical evidence.
Whichever, I think it can be agreed that cover is an important consideration for all blackjack advantage players, regardless of the specific method or methods employed.
False keys will dilute your already small edge from this approach. Sequencing is very powerful in many games, but this is one of the worst to attack with this method.
This three pass R&R appears to dilute the grabs very efficiently. I wouldn�t have thought it would be worth slug tracking anyway.
You didn't say three pass before, you said three riffles. If they really R&R three times, riffling only once for each restack (each restack forming a complete 8 deck pile, which is then split in two for another restack), then ... I STILL think it's better to track slugs! ;-)
Just for sake of argument, assume 26 cards grabs. Map out what happens to the bottom 26 cards through the three passes. Repeat for the top 26. If there is MORE to this shuffle than what you've mentioned, then whatever that MORE is would also dilute the sequences, I imagine. I wouldn't want to get into a more detailed analysis than this, on the off chance the casino is tuning in. Not that many three pass R&Rs with one riff per pass are out there.
Sequencing would be WAY down on my list. Targetting dealer error is another idea. Might fit in well with a "good old boy" act.
L:U:C:K
ETF
sarcastic response lacking anything of substance as usual. Face it, you are out of your depth on this issue.
Is that why you now "Agree with NA" that slug tracking is preferable? Did you READ my post? Isn't that what I said? The only thing "of substance" you added is "The man has eyes." I tried to complement you, since I know that's the best you can muster.
Guess what, blood sucker? I have the feeling Fairy Nuff is not your usual hapless prey. Better find another snack before sunrise.
Face it, you are out of your depth on this issue.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
ETF
This is exactly the type of game where "half-sharp" guys lose money.
You want to use a 1 key sequence? So 7 times out of 8 you are betting into a disadvantage and 1 time in 8 you think an ace will be in the next nine cards? I'll bet you that if you shuffle a deck and start dealing that one of the 1st 9 cards is an ace and I have no key cards. I'll leave that to the math boys to explain to all but this approach is madness.
You want to slug track. You take a 26 card slug and after the first pass it is 52 cards, then 104 and then 208! You mixed your slug into 4 decks - and what if the dealer grabbed the edges a little bit sloppy?
Now some guys here will tell you that this can be done but I'd book the action against 95% of them. Maybe in theory it can be done but you would have massive swings.
My advice to you would be to either Wong the game or play with a huge spread. Best would be to save your money and head out to a better game.
Thanks ET, much appreciated.
I didn�t like the look of the shuffle using 40-card grabs (real world) but it warrants further investigation when you look at 26-card grabs.
For your info: -
Remaining cards on top of discards
Break stack to A&B r&r once to top
Repeat further two times.
Has much been written about rebate-on-loss and how it should be played?
best regards
Fairy Nuff
Has much been written about rebate-on-loss and how it should be played?
Little to write. Bet the farm, then split.
I rarely post info on tracking methods, sequencing or otherwise, but I do want to steer you right on this, Fairy. Just trying to save you some money. Your logic here would indicate that if you ALWAYS bet the farm, knowing that you have a 1/13 chance of catching an ace, then you'd be playing with a 52%/13 = 4% advantage! Hallelujah! What you are ignoring is the negative effect of getting non-aces on your other hands that do not catch the ace. The ace gives you a great advantage, the ten a much smaller advantage, but the other cards, and especially the low cards, are highly disadvantageous. I think this effect, combined with the effect of false keys, combined with the effect of the imperfect rifs stretching the length of even a one-card sequence beyond eight cards (and steering it to the dealer on occasion for a monstrous disadvantage on every hand in play), obliterates any value from using a sequence strategy on this game. If the game were being shuffled by machine, with known perfect rifs, then a theoretical edge might exist. But not with a human dealer, imperfect rifs, varying grab sizes, etc. This game would likely be a waste of time even for a sequence tracking computer. This game is for Wonging only.
