Card clumping and table position.

I've heard it said that when cards are clumped in new deck order (i.e non-shuffled new deck), players on the first base side of the table have an advantage over the house. Is this true? If so, why?

I have heard the same thing. But so what? What casino is going to deal cards that way?

but the effect can still exist it is just much weaker for poorly shuffled cards than non-shuffled cards.

In reality the first base effect would only happen if the cards were uncut, right. Since they can be cut virtually anywhere then I don't see how the advantage or disadvantage swing on first base can be consistent.

There is a real 3rd base advantage, I am not referring to a counter or a whole carder but just sitting at 3rd base gives an extra .002% edge compared to 1st base. Not much of a difference really worth talking about. Most sims (for counting) like SBA use a rotating position for the analysis. For example the hi-lo guy sits at 1st then moves to 2nd while the AOII player moves to 3rd and so on and so forth from round to round or shoe to shoe. This will also (and more importantly so) equalize the advantage due to counting and sitting at 3rd base because of increased card knowledge.

The .002 effect I am referring to is simply based on seating position and works something like psuedocounting but very weak. A player before him/her (in a negative count) eats low cards more than high ones leaving the 3rd baser with better double down correlations to his paired low cards. There may be other factors that work for and against the 3rd baser but in general he/she is better off by .002% or so. Some trifling figure that was discovered as a consequence of somebodies analysis of card clumping shoes in atlantic city. I forgot the guys name but it was the only thing I retained worth remembering from his entire analysis of shuffled and unshuffled decks.

Cutter

Effect of brand new decks in play?
I mean, When a dealer starts off with new cards from the box and
shuffles as opposed to decks that have been in play with a history
of many shuffles. Only once in my BJ play has a PB removed the cards from the table and brought the dealer new cards to deal. (This was
a full table of players that happened to be winning a lot that night.)

What I'm getting @ is that when new cards (out of the box)are put into play, There first life's shuffle is going to arrange cards in a vary different manor opposed to when they have been shuffled repeatedly.
One of my conclusions of this is that the more the cards are shuffled, The more closer the cards can become "Random".

This is just a small event, But my game consists with what the dealer
does. After all, I,m trying to beat the dealer.

The first shuffle is likely to psuedorandomize the cards. The impending shuffles will have discard proceedure thrown in to the equation. I think neither the new or old cards are in a random order but rather an order very close to random. Discard procedure includes picking up small card clumps together and A,X combos together. Most of the rest go hi card low card or lo lo hi or lo lo lo due to double downs. Then they try to mixem all up again by shuffling.

Cutter

There is any advantage to 3rd base play in a situation of the introduction of new cards into play? I tend to play 3rd base only because I have the last choice before the dealer.

This incident of a PB taking away cards and putting up new cards for play only happened in my presents once, And would like to hear any feedback of this if anyone else has experienced this too.

Thank you in advance.

I found the article that prompted my questions. The author was responding to a question about clumping. He stated, "For some inexplicable reason, regardless of the number of decks in play, the number of players at the table, or even the use of a random cut, when cards are clumped in new-deck order, players on the first-base side of the table have an advantage over the house, and players on the third-base side of the table are at a stronger than normal disadvantage."
The word "inexplicable" is what is confusing... the writer claimed that results were based on computer sims, which should make them... ah, ah, "explicable"?

It happens every hour in single deck, every 2 hours in double deck, and about once a shift in 6 deck. Cards simply absorb moisture and stuff from the table, dealers hands, and the atmosphere (air, although it is rather dry I would expect them to shrivel in vegas).

Playing at 3rd base will only do you any good if you are counting (you will see more cards before making your decision) or front loading (sometimes easier with a partner possibly at first base).

I am trying to be helpful but what you seen with the cards happens all the time and it is possible that you haven't been at the table (by coincidence) when they are changed and the one time you seen this you were surprised.

cutter

..that studies on clumped cards were performed on computers! To my knowledge the only program designed to simulate casino pick up and shuffle was Boris on Blackjack.

Written by one of Pattersons students, I understand the program was eventually discontinued due to too many bugs. I'm not aware of the existence of any other Real World Shuffle program.

I believe the study you mentioned above was conducted by Wong(I've never read it). Whether it was performed using a random number generator or some new clumped cards software I've no idea. But, if the first base advantage were correct then that would support the idea that biases in blackjack can occur. These biases though, may be fleeting. Hopefully, someone on the page has more info regarding this alleged first base phenomenon.

I will state this, however, that when a new deck is brought into play(single deck) I will often flat bet the game until I am reasonably satisfied the cards have been randomized. No one on the board will ever convince me that newly introduced cards(particularly multiple deck) cannot be hazardous to your bankroll.

It may sound nonsensical, but this is one piece of nonsense I will continue to observe.

SD Player.

I usually only play tons of short sessions anyway, Thoe I didn't mention (forgot) that the cards were then sealed in plastic
and handed from the dealer to three other casino people in my eyes view. I had never seen this before so I was wondering.

I might also add that I think the casinos "Watch" 3rd base more than any other (Vary Slightly) base due to the fact that this player gets to chose to hit or stand before the dealer gets to play,
(Unless dealer gets BJ.). And in my experience, More people tend to sit on the right side of the table, Maybe do to the fact that more people are right handed (And right legged). ;>

I find BJ to be of a train in motion round and round, Player jumps on and off. Train continues to go round and round when player sleeps.
(But don't sleep on train). Sometimes the train is an express with a standby ticket. And other times you have a first class pass in a dirty cabuse. I do firmly understand and play as if the BJ train will never stop and that my play is on a mission (long term). If we start to play with intent of are own and not the continuation (BJ Train),
then it would be to are disadvantage.

O.K., The only way I can explain this further is by this example:
Golfer Tiger Woods takes a full swing THROUGH his predetermined point of contact with club to ball. Ball flies. And club CONTINUES motion.
Now if Tiger only concentrated with club to ball contact, Then he would have less control of balls accuracy.

No one works with unshuffled cards, so I don't understand the nature of the question.

Norm Wattneberger (forgive the spelling) did a study that showed that 1st base has a miniscule advantage. Unfortunately, I don't remember the nature of the study.

I have heard this to be true also, Since SW ran the sims it adds to the credibility. Even though these conditions never occur in a casino it is still interesting to find out why these strange biases occur.
The only explanation I can think of is the sims are playing perfect basic strategy untill cards arrive to the dealer..then the cards deviate from BS and play according to the dealers rules, therefore the dealer on average will take more hits(per round)than any other base. Since we know dealers will draw a 5 card 21 more often than the players do, the count will rise and first base recieves the next card.

Just thought I'd give it a shot folks!

Once, when I bought 6 new decks, I decided to make a little experiment. I inserted all 6 decks in the shoe without shuffling at all. Then I've played with myself through all 6 decks without cutcard inserted (until the end of the decks). Perfect BS and flat bets. Result: minus 36,5 units.

Important note: it was BS for S17, DOA, DAS, ENHC plus ES. But I don't think that it's very important for any other set of the rules.

Luck.

Garry Baldy.

The word "inexplicable" is what is confusing... the writer claimed that results were based on computer sims, which should make them... ah, ah, "explicable"?

You'd have numerous sequences of cards to go through-it would require some sophisticated form of regression analysis and you'd be testing hypothesis after hypothesis-it could take a lifetime to come up with a complete answer. An example of this is given in Mason Malmuth's "Blackjack Essays" where he tests runs of hi/lo cards and found a statistically significant correlation between shifts in advantage-yet no practical means of explaining or exploiting because the effects were fundamentally non-linear.

so cheap that they only change the cards every two days. You have never seen more worn thick creased cards that the ones at this Casino.
I nearly died laughing when the dealer atempted to smooth out
a creased card on the felt. A normal casino would have replaced the card.

Why don't you have a friend, or someone enter your game during your experiment and then leave and then come in again. Then do a few million trials or so and see what happens.

might have to do with the repetitive occurrance of two sub-sets: one consisting of 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8, and one consisting of 9, 10, J, Q, K, and A, but I can't logically figure out why first base would have an advantage over third base.
What surprises me the most is that a facit of this game is classified as being "inexplicable" by one of the most respected blackjack experts. Is it possible that other inexplicable events occur?

What you say ?

There must be a few less important things in blackjack to worry about than poorly shuffled cards, but somehow they escape me at present.

This game is about determining when the good cards are coming and then finding a way to consistently be allowed to put out the big bets at such times. Everything else is a distance second, or, as is the case with the subject of this thread, worse. No casino deals cards shuffled so poorly that they could have any practical effect on your advantage. In terms of learning this game, this subject is simply a distraction.

cheers,
adhoc