Ace sequencing

That's a tough one to track. Must take the dealers all day. You'd think these places would realize time is money!

Arnold could be right -- probably smarter to just Wong. Or just look for greener pasteurs. GOTTA be something better nearby!!

This is in Vegas, right?

L:U:C:K
ETF

Thank you for taking the time to help me get my head around this.

I think, but am not sure, that this shuffle was designed by S40 to be quick, and effective at diluting slugs.

Pretty hard to Wong when you�re the only person in the room ;-)

You wouldn�t track it?

Thanks again Arnold

Fairy Nuff

you.

Please visit more often.

You still live in the big O ? I know RGE has moved, but i though maybe you stayed in O town.

Let's get together for a drink. I pay the consultation fee and you buy the drinks. Deal ?

Thank you alienated, for providing such a detailed explanation.

You have given me (and many others, I am sure) much to think about.

Do you have a favorite shuffle analyses tool or are you a pencil and paper man J
I use ST 2000 but it has limitations.

Regards

Fairy Nuff

When helping others learn to track, I have tried to steer them away from the A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, (ETC) labeling method.
I KNOW that's how the Bishop taught us to do it, and I did it that way at first too, but there really is a much better way. I (and several other trackers I correspond with) use a different method, because it is so much easier.
@^)
With the standard labeling method, if you have all the cards in the discard tray, and say that each 1/2 deck segment gets an alphabetic label, starting with A at the bottom of the tray, that's pretty much the standard labeling system, ala The Bishop, right?
@^/
Now (with that method) ask the average new tracker to reach out and touch segment "H". They will almost always have to pause and think about where it is, before touching the upper half of the 4th deck from the bottom of the tray.
That's because they have to think: "Okay, "H" is the 8th letter in the alphabet, so then its the 8th segment from the bottom. If I count up 8 segments from the bottom, that means its the upper half of the 4th deck."
@^/
Now instead, try this:
Let's call the bottom half of the 1st deck to hit the tray "L1" (as in Lower half of deck "1") and we'll call the upper half of the 1st deck "U1" (Upper half of deck one) and so on....
The cards in the discard tray will now look like this (from top to bottom):
U6,
L6,
U5,
L5,
U4,
L4,
U3,
L3,
U2,
L2,
U1,
L1,

NOW, if, for example, you ask even a total neophyte tracker to reach out and touch "U4", they instantly know exactly where it is, because "U4" is the upper half of deck four. Pretty simple. One less thing to tax the old brain.
@^)
Its also makes it a LOT easier to recognize and memorize patterns as far as where segments go after the shuffle. Try mapping out a couple of shuffles you already know and you'll see what I mean.
@^)
Additionally, it helps for tracking in casinos that plug: If a rich slug WAS at U3 and a 1/2 deck segment was inserted anywhere below it, the rich slug is now at L4.
If 2 (two) 1/2 deck slugs were inserted below it, its now at U4. Pretty easy to calculate, huh?
@^)
I shared a couple of emails about this last year with the guy at Mesa Verde that wrote ST2000, and told him several trackers were using this method of labeliing. He said he thought it was a good idea, and that in future upgrades of ST200 he'd try to include the option for user-customized labeling of segments, to accommodate this method.
@^)
It may not be for people who have already tracked a long time using the other method, and dont' want to change, but for new trackers or more experienced trackers who can switch, it is a lot easier, IMHO.

Take care,
@^)
Cyclops

The shuffle you describe is simply not a shuffle that would be attacked by any sequencer or tracker who had actually developed the incredibly difficult talents required to play such strategies. The game has very slim pickin's. This would be like an expert counter playing in a game dealt out 50%. Just because he might squeeze a dime out of it every few shoes, even with a huge spread, why bother? Since there is so much more available out there, this is a waste of time. If it's the only game in your location, then just learn to count (very well) and use the biggest spread you can get away with.

Most of the discussions above, regarding possible tracking opportunities, in my opinion, are theoretical. While the authors of some of these possible strategies are obviously intelligent, and I find such conjectures as have been put forth very interesting and enjoyable to read, I would venture to guess that few have ever attempted to employ such methods in the god-awful shuffle you have described. Some of the methods would work, as the authors themselves acknowledge, if you were assured of perfect rifs, perfectly sized grabs, and you had an incredible memory. If all you've got is the great memory, stay in the real world. If you've got the money to spread your bets at this game, then you've got the money to travel to a better game. And just learn to count well before you try any of this fancy stuff. Most of the people who write about this stuff have figured it out on paper. As soon as the dealer grabs 22 cards with his right hand, and 31 cards with his left hand, the theories fall apart.
By the way, regarding single-card sequencing, have you considered that if you tried to get 10 sequences per 8-deck shoe, on average, you would see one key card every single round of play, assuming 5 cards per round? The false keys totally destroy your real ops.

Fairy Nuff

�

�

Thank you very much Arnold, a check�s in the mail "J
I�ll buy you a beer (or two) if ever you�re in my area.

Fairy Nuff