Earlier, today I`ve found in Parker`s Policies(11 may 2002,RGE21 forum) the following text:
". I do not believe in re-inventing the wheel. Basic Strategy, card counting, etc., are proven concepts. Betting progressions, "card clumping," "Target" etc., have been proven invalid. ".
I`m not sure about the meaning of the word "invalid" in his text, but the card clumping
exists, except that the use of this issue does`n`t
work.
Actually card clumping`s meaning is very close to the expression,"non-random shuffle",because either way you look at the dealer when he shuffles,you will see that he/she takes about a half of a deck in one hand not just one card,so where is going a card will go the rest 25 cards too,but mixed with the cards from the other hand.
So,what`s the difference between non-random shuffle and card clumping !? Very small.If you say that the shuffle is truly random what`s the use of shuffle tracking(wich is proven ,is`n`t?)?
The second curiousity is that the cards are shuffled actually after dealing.For 6D for example
I believe that the cards are changing their position with 1-3% on 75% pen. playng BS.After the dealer has done with his stutter shuffle the cards position has changed with n%.This "n" has an average,no ? Now let`s consider "m" the average of "n".Can be m=100? I doubt it! So,if m<100 then the difference between 100 and m will be the quantity of last shoe played(in the position when were after last hand played and before shuffle) wich will occur in the new game.
But this is nothing new.Deal the spades from a deck to 2 BS players and to the dealer(no hole card),setting the cards like this: 2,3,4,5...K,A After that hand deal a new hand without shuffling (the first card dealt to the dealer will be on top).Do that 10 times and cumulate the winnings.After that set the same cards in a random order and play 10 hands as before,cumulate the winnings and compare it to the first.
What is what I want to say is that starting from a situation is 100-m% probable that the next shoe the y situation will occur.
I hope I was very simple,
George I.
