Obviously Arnold Ziffel and Dog Hand have far more computer skills than I do and their conclusion that the decrease in value is not a straight line looks valid to me. At some point, as the number of cards increases behind the cut card, the value of card counting must approach zero. Exactly where that number is, I am not sure.
In the example I used, cutting 62 cards out of play instead of 52, reduced Stanford Wong's benchmark figure from $16 down to $13. That is a decrease of 18.75%. Cutting another 42 cards out of play must surely reduce the benchmark winning rate to nearly zero. On more than one occassion, Stanford Wong reiterates that penetration is one of the most important aspects of a winning game. Cut thin to win.
Just in case Big Red is reading this submission, you mentioned that it is a no hole card game; do you lose everything to a dealer blackjack?
