Hi,
Which is the better game:
4 decks with continuous shuffle, or
6 decks reshuffled at about 4.5 decks?
Thanks,
jw1
Unless you have extremely liberal rules, you can't gain an advantage with 4 decks being continuously shuffled.
given that it is 4D? I believe .39% would be the house edge for a 5D S17 DAS game. Also, wouldn't the lack of a "cut card effect" also favor the CSM?
Great responses! Thanks
These are the new games in Arizona. They were voted in in Nov and are just starting to appear.
Basically, they're pretty weak games...
I wouldn't give the casinos the satisfaction of playing a CSM. You shouldn't either.
and anyone who plays at a CSM deserves what they get.
Assuming the same rules, I would recommend a 4D CSM over an 8D shoe for a BS player. According to Appendix 10 from thewizardofodds.com (link below), the house edge with typical Atlantic City rules against a BS player on a 4D CSM is .373%. The house edge with the same rules on an 8D shoe is .477% (with the "cut card effect" factored in). Even with the 20% increase in hands per hour that occurs with CSMs (according to the link), a BS player's expected loss would be lower with the CSM. 100 hands with an average of $10/hand on the 8D shoe would yield an expected loss of $4.77; 120 hands with the same average bet on the 4D CSM would yield an expected loss of $4.48. In fact, 100 hands on a 6D shoe with the same rules and average bet would yield a slightly higher expected loss ($4.54) than would 120 hands on the 4D CSM ($4.48). However, although the figures are not given for 5D in the link, the expected loss for a BS player with a 5D CSM is higher than it is with 6D and 8D shoes, assuming the same rules; if the 5D CSM had better rules such as LS and RSA, though, it would also be better than 6D/8D shoes for BS players.
Maybe one out of two hundred, or even fewer, non-counters play "perfect" BS, so the rate of loss for the other 99.5% of non-counters is much more severe than the house advantage over a "perfect" BS player. The CSM only makes the speed of their loss even worse for this vast majority of non-counters.
A "perfect" BS player almost always goes on to become a counter.
the rate of loss for the other 99.5% of non-counters increases just as much on the 6D/8D shoes as it does on the CSMs. The only reason that a 4D game is better than a 6D or 8D game (assuming the same rules) is that the probability of naturals decreases as the number of decks used increases. So, even the very worst players are better off playing 4D than 8D because they will get naturals more frequently. The .104% difference between the house edges for the 4D CSM and the 8D shoe that I quoted will still be there even for the worst of ploppies.
Seems that the people willing to put the time into learning BS perfectly usually go ahead and learn to count. By the way, I've run into many a counter who doesnt know BS perfectly. Many also seem to deviate far too often in unjustified situations.
The ShuffleMaster King machine is 4D. Another manufacturer (the name escapes me at the moment) has a 5D machine.
Some clever people figured out how to beat the SMK machine due to the way it distributed the cards; so these machines are on the way out, fast! But if you know the "trick" you can still capitalize on those which remain in service. I think each of the two Gulf Coast Grand Casinos still have a few in service, at least they did early last month, the last time I was down there.
"Seems that the people willing to put the time into learning BS perfectly usually go ahead and learn to count."
It takes far less time to learn basic strategy than becoiming a good card counter. Actually no time is required to learn BS for those who use a strategy card. Taking the time to learn the fundamentals of pool is a long ways from taking time to learn how to be a professional.
"By the way, I've run into many a counter who doesnt know BS perfectly. Many also seem to deviate far too often in unjustified situations."
Better known as mistakes or index numbers.
By the way,I never run into "many a counter", they are few and in between. If you're a card counter, you will see that the many a counters you thought to be, are actually big ploppies after all. This happens all the time.
Another note is, just because someone stands on a 15 and so forth does not mean they dont know the correct play,they may be simply scared to hit it.
One phenomenon, which can be proven, of CSMs (I'm talking specifically about the SM King machine here -- I've no experience with and have not studied the others) is that they tend to extend the length of both winning and losing streaks.
The extention of losing streaks is why you often see tables with such machines sitting empty for long periods.
But if you can find one which is in "extended dumping mode" (easy to spot, as there will (a) be players at the table and (b) they will all be happy campers), it's worth risking 3 or 4 base bets on a fairly steep progression; so long as you are willing to leave at the first sign the streak is over.
Thus, the pure basic strategy player who is not aware of the "extention" effect, should definitely avoid CSMs like the plague.
But, if you're strictly a counter, the SMK *can* be counted, if you know the "trick."
between results of successive hands to have an impact greater than rules or number of decks. I seriously doubt it makes any measurable net difference on expectation for CSMs.
> between results of successive hands to have an impact greater than
> rules or number of decks. I seriously doubt it makes any measurable
> net difference on expectation for CSMs.
It's not the "results of successive hands," but the *reason* those results occur.
Once in a while, situations will occur when a significantly disproportionate number of low cards will be grouped toward the bottom of the shoe, meaning that a significantly disproportionate number of high cards will be grouped toward the top of the shoe.
As the "good" cards are used, they are randomly inserted in the undealt portion. Since random distribution will, on average, be even distribution, this means the "good" top portion of the shoe will get (proportionatly) as many of those "good" cards as will the "bad" bottom portion, meaning that the top of the shoe will remain equally "good," but the "bad" bottom portion will both (a) be made less "bad," and (b) be increased in size, which in turn means that the "good" top portion will be decreased in size by a like amount.
Thus, in this situation, what might be called a "hot streak" will be dramatically lengthened.
The same is true the other way around, giving a result that a "cold streak" will also be dramatically lengthened.
Add to this the fact that "cold streaks" drive players away from the table. This dramatic reduction in the number of cards that are being moved equally dramatically increases the amount of chronological time the "cold streak" lasts, explaining why those tables sit empty or virtually empty so much of the time.
This also increases the amount of time it takes for favorable situations to build; so these relatively rare events become even more rare -- not from the standpoint of the number of cards being moved, but on a strictly chronologial basis.
BUT, rare as they are, these favorable sequences DO occur. And they are SO favorable that if you're lucky enough to observe one in progress, it's very much to your advantage to jump in and stay in as long as it lasts.
As for the "trick" in counting these games, if you want it you'll have to put your email address in your reply, if any, to this post; so I can send it to you. I would also like to have your undertaking that you will keep it confidential, as I don't think it prudent to broadcast this information too widely.
How so? It's all still in proportion. I understand more decks have higher house egdes, I just haven't read the mathematics for this.
It's like more decks having lower counts. The number of cards might increase, but the proportion doesn't chance.
e.g.
I have a pack of 52 cards. Chances I'll pull an ace is one in 13.
I have 4 decks of cards. Chances I'll pull an ace is still one in 13.
Someone please explain this to me.
