Interesting information in Digideal patent

Digideal's patent for their "digital 21" concept has some interesting passages on advantage play. It says amongst other things, that automated shuffling machines are beatable, is very disdainful about the merits of card counting and reckons card sequencing to be a much more serious threat to the casinos bottom line. I've outlined what I think are the relevant passages, the full text is in the link below:-

An additional issue which has continued to be a concern in the casino industry relates to the use of automated shuffling machines. Prior automated shuffling machines have not demonstrated a sufficient ability to thwart highly skilled gamblers. Such gamblers have demonstrated an ability either by human intellect and training, or with the aid of computers, to determine information about the decks being dealt. This information is typically derived from information collected concerning the preceding hand or hands of play Armed with such information, the skilled gamblers track a specific sequence or multiple sequences or groupings of cards within a deck or large stack. Tracking is often done for a group of cards forming part of a stack rather than an entire stack. These techniques in card tracking can significantly shift the advantage from the casino to a skilled gambler. Prior card shuffling machines all show a weakness in that skilled gamblers can observe operation of the machines and in many situations make predictions which serve as a means for card tracking.

The use in blackjack of numerous card decks, such as six decks, has been one strategy directed at minimizing the risk of card tracking. Such tracking should be contrasted with card counting strategies which are typically less accurate and do not pose as substantial a risk of loss to the casino. Use of numerous card decks in a stack along with proper cut card placement can also reduce the risk of effective card counting. However, it has been found that multiple decks are not sufficient to overcome the skilled gambler's ability to track cards and turn the advantage against the house.

Card tracking can be thought of as being of two types. Sequential card tracking involves determination of the specific ordering of the card deck or decks being dealt. This can be determined or closely estimated for runs of cards, sequences of cards forming a portion or portions of a stack. Sequential card tracking can be devastating to a casino since a player taking advantage of such information can bet large in a winning situation and change the odds in favor of the player and against the casino.

Slug tracking involves determining runs of the deck or stack which show a higher frequency of certain important cards. For example, in the play of blackjack there are a relatively large number of 10-count cards. These 10-count cards are significant in producing winning blackjack hands or 20-count hands which are also frequently winning hands. Gamblers who are proficient in tracking slugs containing large numbers of 10-count cards can gain an advantage over the house and win in blackjack.

This passage on surveillance is also of some interest:-

Even where above-table cameras are used, their use may not be effective. Such cameras may require time-consuming and tedious human analysis to go over the video tapes or other recordings of table action. This human study may be needed just to ascertain the sequence of cards dealt or to determine the amount of betting. Such human analysis is costly and cannot economically be used to routinely monitor all action in a casino cardroom. It is also required because there is no current way for easily ascertaining whether the dealer or player won the hand, such as in a blackjack game. It is typically not possible to discern the indicia number or letter presented in the corner of the playing card when viewed in a recorded video tape. Counting the individual pips in the center field of the playing cards can be done; however, it cannot be done in all situations with the desired reliability. This is true because cards may be partly or totally covered by another overlying card contained in the same hand, leading to missing information or mistaken interpretations. Thus, the video camera monitoring techniques have only found very limited effectiveness as a routine approach for identifying cheating. There has also been relatively limited use as a serious analytical tool because of the difficulty of analysis. Such camera surveillance techniques are also of only limited effectiveness as a deterrent because many of the people involved with cheating have a working knowledge of their limitations and utilize approaches which are not easily detectible by such systems.

John,if a player is adept at counting,slug and seqential tracking what would his percentadg advantage be in mulitple deck games?

John,if a player is adept at counting,slug and seqential tracking what would his percentadg advantage be in mulitple deck games?

That is really impossible to answer correctly because of the many variables involved. You would need to specify exact game conditions:- penetration, number of riffles, number of passes, dealer consistency ad infinitum. Even then you still have a major problem, because most slug and sequential trackers discover their own techniques beyond a very basic level. Finally you have the question of how the techniques are combined-do you use some sophisticated synergistic formula as the best memory experts like Goren and O'Brien do? - or just use the techniques conservatively, pressing home your advantage when two or three methods indicate an edge?. Note the discussion of the advantage from sequencing alone in Get The Edge At Blackjack was extremely controversial.

Having said that I expect you think I'm copping out so I'll say that under generic conditions (6 decks, 65% pen, bog-standard European rules) where each strategy is possible but not unusually valuable, and you make no special effort to combine the techniques, using a 1-12 optimal spread, you'd be looking at around 4%. If anything that is too high because I treated the gain from ST in the calculations to arrive at that figure as that of a counter playing a series of sub-decks, which is an over-simplification.

Sounds a lot better than the 1 to 2% from counting.
Do most skilled counters go on to learn shuffle tracking?

Sounds a lot better than the 1 to 2% from counting.

Actually, it is extremely difficult to get a 1% edge with counting in a shoe game these days. 0.5% is more typical. You should also be aware that % edge is not a terribly good way to measure things, since risk is just as important a factor in how much money you actually make. Nowadays we tend to use combined risk/EV measures such as Brett Harris's N0 (number of hands it takes on average to double a bankroll) or Schlesinger's SCORE (the average hourly wage from a given game on a $10,000 bankroll).

Do most skilled counters go on to learn shuffle tracking?

My impression is that they do not. I recently looked into advertising with the search engine Goto.com. There were tens of thousands of monthly hits for "card counting", but less than 150 for shuffle tracking.

A constant theme of my writings is that players should master techniques other than card counting if they wish to obtain a statistically meaningful advantage, and avoid spending months or years enduring negative fluctuation. For whatever reason, most advantage players do not do this. Recently however, I have noticed a small increase in interest in these methods. I suspect the "garden variety" card counters are being weeded out by Darwinian selection.

It seems to me that counting is just the tip of the iceberg and there are many others ways to gain an advantage,I have just been reading about sacrifice splits for rider bets in Basic BJ and the gamemaster has an article about how to play with another person.Also there does not seem to be much around about team play,which seems to me a great way to gain an advantage.
These methods also seem a lot more interasting than just sitting there counting,if you can find people you trust,shouldnt counting be the first step and not the last?

I think that the article clearly overstates the effiency of sequence tracking.
You would agree with me that most of the not very numerous trackers will rather concentrate on segment tracking as the error margin here is considerably lower than with sequence tracking.
Furthermore, sequence tracking can effectivly be countered by stripping, which is done by most casinos in addition to the riffle.

Francis Salmon

I think that the article clearly overstates the effiency of sequence tracking.

That would not be surprising. They are trying to sell a form of blackjack where sequencing is not possible. Obviously they want to inflate the dangers posed by sequence trackers. What is surprising is that they virtually discount the threat from card counters, though the system they are selling can easily eliminate that threat also.

You would agree with me that most of the not very numerous trackers will rather concentrate on segment tracking as the error margin here is considerably lower than with sequence tracking.

They certainly do-whether they should or not is another question. The error margin is considerably lower than with sequence tracking, but so is the profit ceiling. I've used sequencing in games where the riffling was so inadequate I could have been playing a cooler. The maximum practically obtainable advantage with sequencing is much higher than the maximum practically obtainable advantage with segment tracking.

Furthermore, sequence tracking can effectivly be countered by stripping, which is done by most casinos in addition to the riffle.

See Alienated's comments below.

It seems to me that counting is just the tip of the iceberg and there are many others ways to gain an advantage,I have just been reading about sacrifice splits for rider bets in Basic BJ and the gamemaster has an article about how to play with another person.Also there does not seem to be much around about team play,which seems to me a great way to gain an advantage.
These methods also seem a lot more interasting than just sitting there counting,if you can find people you trust,shouldnt counting be the first step and not the last?

It is rare I am so completely in agreement with someone on this forum.