Are there any casinos out there that don't shuffle after each hand that allow players to at least emplore some kind of counting methods? Please advise.
Doesn't matter if they shuffle after every round or not - the whole thing is just a "skin" to make it look like BJ.
Go to a real casino where you can see the cards, and you can count for real. You don't live near a casino? Well, wait until your next trip to a city with a casino. Or better yet, just play poker with your friends on a Friday night.
I found two such places. One not only had a respectable game (55% pen on double deck), but it had rules glitches that gave the player greater than a 1% off the top edge. Spreading from $1 to $5, I lost $300 (planetluck.com)
The other one had a 4 deck game, about 70% pen, and have yet to pay me after about, oh, two years. Do NOT play there (ussportscasino.com)
You said, "Go to a real casino, where you can see the cards and you can count for real." I'm sure that you're aware that almost all card counting is based on computer simulations of play, which don't occur in real casinos and don't show you the cards. What makes your theory of play superior to his?
What he means is, it's not really blackjack, it's more like a slot machine in that your decisions do not matter. The online casinos have a set hold percentage, and it doesn't matter if you play absolutely perfectly, the odds are stacked way against you. Only games in which your play decisions make a difference can be beaten. In this online version of BJ, they don't, and they therefore cannot be beaten. I'm not positive all online casinos are like this, but I am positive some are, speaking from experience. And Walter, you really need to chill with the "real-world conditions" crap. Either stop slamming computer proven theories or stop using them to further your progressions pablum.
Most on-line casinos "claim" that cards are dealt from randomly shuffled decks and X% of cards are dealt before a reshuffle. They go to great lengths to verify the integrity of their game. If you accept their credibility, then their sumulation of the game should be similar to simulation programs used in blackjack machines and programs used to teach card counting skills.
My point was that if you accept the premise that a computer program can accurately simulate actual play, then there's no reason to discount the integrity of on-line casinos if you believe their claims. It's not a matter of seeing the cards.
And I'm not "slamming computer proven theories" in this post; I'm saying that if you believe that computer-generated blackjack is reliable in one instance, there's no reason to discount it's reliability in another instance.
I'm not positive all online casinos are like this, but I am positive some are, speaking from experience.
I'd be interested to know which casinos you are talking about. I've never been stiffed by an internet casino or sportsbook and I've lost count of the number I've bet with. According to the testimony of more experienced online players cheating of this kind is extremely rare.
In a thread posted on the Net betting page about 6 months ago i posted a hand history which included about 660 hands of bj where, flat betting $10 per hand with a few bet deviations,(yeah, I steam a bit too) in a .7% advantage game(SD, Early surrender!) playing perfect basic strategy with only about 4 errors which added up to like $3, i lost $990. That's about a 17% loss in a positive expectation game with surrender, which smoothes out the fluctuations. Some of the math guys on this site figured that would happen about 1 in 1300 times or so. Shortly thereafter someone posted an email from Unified Gaming ostensibly explaining their game to a prospective customer. In the email, a " built-in hold percentage" was discussed. Now you and I both know that a .7% advantage flat betting at $100 a hand at 500 hands an hour means $350 per hour, with what I'd imagine to be extremely involatile fluctuations compared to regular BJ. Just off the top of my head, I'd figure a $10,000 BR would give you a better than 5% risk of ruin,(maybe better?). I don't know if this game is still being offered, but if it were on the up-and-up, it would have lasted about 6 hours once heavy hitters like you found it. As far as internet sportsbooks and casinos, I've never been stiffed either, and am very impressed with their payouts as a whole,(thank you Baltimore Ravens!). I have flat-betted $100 a hand online B4, which I'd doubt most who play online can say, save for you, of course. Obviously, you and I both know counting works, and there are programs out there that will help you beat even a 50% pen 6D game by using as perfect count strategy as current technology allows. I'm not saying they're all crooks, but I am saying that their SD game is not on the level. Comparatively, I played 2 to 4 hands at a time at BJ Blitz at the Rio in august putting about $20-25,000 through over the course of around 10 hours of play and won about $200, about a 1% gain, which is a tiny bit high,(.1% about right with ins. and perfect play), but right within expectation. I'm postive you know/knew about these early surrender games, and if you did, you could've flat bet that full time,(which i considered). Last I'd heard on it, UG pulled ES, but only after at least 3 months of the game being available, which would not happen if the game were on the square.
I DON'T accept their credibilty. This is the heart of my point. You speak the truth. If the game is beatable, it will be beaten. If it is not beaten, then there's probably something fishy going on. Read my response to GBV for more on this subject.
Right, I take your point. Usually when people mention cheating at online blackjack they latch onto some short-term aberration such as the dealer not busting, or too many twos being dealt or something. You can easily find something weird if you look for it, since the data sample is almost infinite.
However, I remember this incident well, and you do have a very strong case. The UG game looked like a trap to me and I steered well clear of it: then again I've missed out on several very lucrative promotions since which were legitimate for the same reasons so I'm not pretending I have all the answers either.
One point: Bill Zender published some data in "Card-counting for the casino executive" which suggested that the use of computers in games with even quite acceptable penetration was almost worthless for shoes. I would never advise anybody to try and count these games: if you look at the swings you'll experience on CV or SBA or something its terrifying, you could spend decades on the wrong side of the bell-curve.