If you dont count CSM are the only thing you should play.The reason being if you play perfect basic strategy you will be playing every hand perfectly as BS is based upon a even count and with a CSM the count will always be even.Think about it for non counters this is the only way you should play.
For one, CSM tables deal more hands per hour, which increases the ploppies per-hour losses. Next, the count isn't actually unchanged -- it's just untrackable with traditional card counting techniques (think of an infinite deck). Even if the count did remain zero, ploppies would lose high counts as well as low counts. In my experience, ploppies seem to like variance, as they can win once in a while (and can blame their losses on the "greedy bastard" who doubled down his soft 18 against the six and "killed the table"). Hell, that's why the ploppies love progressions. Finally, CSMs are bad for us, so why encourage anyone to play them, especially when it contributes to overall trend of worsening blackjack games that hurt ploppies as well as us?
The logic used here (by the original poster) is just plain wrong. For a non-counter, the long-term EV (per hand) is the same for a CSM as for a shoe with a cut card. So long as the shuffle is NOT preferential (ie, so long as it is not based on the deck composition), it doesn't matter to the non-counter (in terms of EV per hand) whether you shuffle after every hand, half way through the shoe, or deal down near the bottom. Of course, in terms of EV per hour, the non-counter loses less when less hands per hour are dealt. Of course, by this logic, the non-counter loses even less by just not playing.
The idea that, by shuffling after every hand, a basic strategy player does better because basic strategy is based on a count of zero, which is what you get if you shuffle after each hand, doesn't hold up. There is no difference between cards being out of play because they are in the discard pile, or being out of play because they are at the bottom of the shoe.
Keith
that the cards are evenly distributed...just randomly distributed. There will still be clumps of 10's and Aces and also clumps of small cards just as if the shoe were hand shuffled and dealt normally. The clumps just become unpredictable.
Depending on how the reintroduction of cards is done, there can be a latency of distribution which can be disasterous for the player.
The ShuffleMaster King, for example, reintroduces cards in such a way as to extend both lean and rich "clumps." IOW, the bad portions of the shoe will last very much longer than with a normal shuffle, as will be good portions.
If you're lucky enough to catch an extended "rich" portion, you can make a LOT of money just betting progression. But this condition is relatively rare, compared with extended "lean" and "choppy" portions during which both the progression bettor and flat bettor will, to put it simply, just get killed.
What do you mean by "latency of distribution"? Exactly how is this non-random? How are these cards shuffled to "extend" these clumps? I would assume that the shuffling machine treats every card the same.
Keith
to tell noncounter or ploppies that CSM machines will help them.
Since the over whelming majority of blackjack players are non counters, Does anyone really believe they are going to put in machines that help most players lose less money?
CSMS are actually better for the non counter in terms of ev due to the cut card effect. The BS player benefits from a fixed number of rounds. This is not, however, to encourage CSM play. As other have pointed out, your play rate is faster. Also, basic strategy is calculated by the first play off the top of the deck(s), not at a TC of 0.
in shoes and is offset somewhat by the floating advantage.
I haven't posted in years, but I remember you. You are a good player. Hope you are doing well.
Dave
> What do you mean by "latency of distribution"? Exactly how is this non-random? <
First, I did not say it was "non-random." But the very nature of randomness means that there must be portions of the (4D ShuffleMaster King) shoe which are rich, portions which are lean and portions which are "choppy."
To illustrate the effect, let's take the simple (and not entirely unrealistic) example where the first 2 decks have an excess of 8 high cards and the last 2 decks have an excess of 8 low cards. Thus the TC for the front 2 is +4 and the TC for the back 2 is -4.
Now two rounds (say 26 cards) are dealt, then fed into the machine to be randomly inserted into the remaining 3� decks. On average, 4/7ths of these cards with the character of a +4 TC will be inserted into the back 2 decks; and 3/7ths will be inserted into the front 1� decks.
Thus the remaining rich front portion of the shoe is no longer just 78 cards in size -- it is now, on average, 78 cards + 3/7 * 26 cards, or ~89 cards. IOW, you didn't burn up 26 cards worth of the +4 cards, you only burned up 4/7ths of them, since some (an average of 3/7ths of them) would be reinserted near the front of the shoe.
This is the "latency of distribution" I spoke of -- i.e., it takes longer to "use up" the cards at the front of the shoe than it does with a "normal" shuffle.
To illustrate the effect, let's take the simple (and not entirely unrealistic) example where the first 2 decks have an excess of 8 high cards and the last 2 decks have an excess of 8 low cards.
It's not unrealistic the cards could be distributed that way, but I think it's unrealistic to think you could KNOW it, in advance. And if you don't know it, you can't make any use of it.
If you don't know the distribution of the cards in the CSM, then after the two rounds are mixed in randomly, you have a random shoe. It doesn't matter what the 26 cards were.
I don't believe what you are describing is latency. Latency used to have some real validity for beating the CSMs. The idea was, the cards were NOT randomly mixed through the whole shoe. It took a round or three before they could work their way up to the front to be redealt.
ETF
What is the "cut card effect" and what is the "floating advantage"?
Thanks,
Keith
1) You are willing to back-count 'till your brain nearly fry's and NOT play about 90% of the time.
2) The table needs to be as full as possible with one or two seats open at 3 base area so you can wong in for a one or two hand play then wong out.
3) The CSM has to be running no more than 4 decks.
4) The dealer must leave at least 1/2 deck in the discard tray prior to every new deal.
I sometimes use a CSM as a cover play ie; (what pro would ever play a CSM?). However, I do only put money on a CSM table when the TC is +1 or better.
> ...but I think it's unrealistic to think you could KNOW it, in advance. <
Who said anything about knowing anything "in advance?"
The entire, and ONLY, point of the post is that the SMK-CSM tends to entend situations where a "clump" of like cards has been (randomly) created toward the front of the shoe.
The creation of such "clumps" is an eventuality. If the extended clump is "choppy," the harm to progression bettors is major. If the extended clump is "lean" the harm to both flat and progression BS players is major. If the extended clump is "rich" then flat bettors are helped somewhat and progression bettors are helped considerably.
BUT, this is NOT to say that BS players, whether flat or progresion bettors, can ever know in advance what is going to happen to them the next hand, or next 3 hands; and is NOT to imply they can ever gain an edge on the CSM-shuffled game.
To repeat, the ONLY thing that is being said here is that certain situations which normally occur during the game are extended in duration by the SMK-CSM.
Cut Card Effect When the cut card apppears, it signifies the last round of play. The cut card causes the dealer to shuffle after a number of cards are approximately dealt, instead of shuffling after a specific number of rounds. Using a cut card favors the house in terms of expectation. It affects both Counters and Non-Counters, irrespective of their betting strategies. A player who plays a game with a fixed number of rounds will do better than if he/she plays in the same game but with a Cut Card instead. This is why a Non-Counter will do better per hand against a CSM (see entry) where there isn't any Cut Card.
Floating Advantage The concept whereby, in multideck games, the advantage we associate with every level of a True Count floats down the TC, the deeper we get into the pack of cards we're dealt, i.e. the deeper into the shoe the respective TC is encountered. The concept was indirectly implied first in Revere's Playing BJ a a Business and later on suggested by Uston, Snyder, and others. According to Don Schlesinger, who, in a series of BJF articles in 1989, reprinted in BJ Attack, first defined and researched the concept, "As a pack is depleted, the same True Count garners extra advantage, said advantage becoming especially interesting at those vey levels where the shuffle is most likely to occur". Alas, Schlesinger established that "the FA is of more theoretical than practical import".
**From the BJ Glossary Link
To repeat, the ONLY thing that is being said here is that certain situations which normally occur during the game are extended in duration by the SMK-CSM.
Sorry, but you've produced no evidence to back up that statement. If the shoe is random, it's random.
ETF
These devices were not intended to thrawt card counters. They were invented to get in more hands per hour. Simply that. The fact that they hurt card counters is a plus for casinos though, but luckily not too many people like to play with them. Most people, even ploppies, still like the hand shuffled shoe, mainly so they can get a break after the shoe is over. Also, when someone is about to leave they usually wait until the end of the shoe to put a mark at the end of their day. Superstitious people hate CSM because they are afraid of the cards being "messed up" when somebody makes a mistake.
Eventually I think that they will not be here to stay. It takes a lot of complaining and refusal to play at them before casinos will take them out though. Also expressing a lack of trust in the shuffling will get the casinos attention as far as, what the customer's idea of a fair game is. This may still take a few years but they may not entirely take over.
Thanks for the response. I wasn't even AWARE of that "BJ Glossary" link all the way down at the bottom of the page (I have to scroll down to get to it, and I had never scrolled that frame down before.. it never even occurred to me that there might be something below the list of green chip forums).
The floating advantage thing is somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure that it offsets anything (for the non-counter), since the count at the end of the shoe is just as likely to be positive than negative.
That cut card effect thing is interesting. At first I couldn't figure out what caused it, but after thinking about it for a bit it became obvious. More cards tend to be dealt as the count is rising than as the count is falling (since small cards = more hits) so you are likely to get fewer hands in when the shoe goes "good" than when it goes "bad". Then again, the effect seems like it would be miniscule, but it's still interesting from a theoretical point of view.
Keith
Although I haven't posted here in 2 1/2 years, I need to step in to clarify something that you mentioned above, in your previous post, and that isn't correct. (Of course, what you quoted from BJA3 is perfectly fine! :-))
There is no floating advantage insofar as the basic strategy player is concerned. Only the counter can profit from the FA. At certain counts close to zero (which the BS player is ignorant of), the BS player may have more advantage than he thinks he does, but those situations will be exactly balanced by other (more extreme) counts, where he has less advantage than he might believe. The net result is that, no matter what the level of penetration, the overall edge for the BS player is identical to what it was at the top of the shoe.
If you think about it for a minute, you'll realize that such would have to be the case. If it weren't, the BS player could just wait until most of the shoe had been dealt, jump in, and then magically enjoy more edge than he would have had off the top of the shoe. Of course, that just isn't possible.
Don
