GBV, I understand that a CSM-dealt round doesn't always start at a count of zero, because cards from the previous round can rarely appear in the current one. But that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a cut-card effect.
GBV, I understand that a CSM-dealt round doesn't always start at a count of zero, because cards from the previous round can rarely appear in the current one. But that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a cut-card effect.
Are you sure? What if the latency does not manifest itself on a round by round basis? What if it is for example, time-dependent rather than round-dependent-would that not create a rather different bias, as is the case with the King CSM?
Wouldn't a 6 deck CSM have less of a bs advantage because of the poor penetration?
for non-counters. We were discussing basic strategy only.
Don
since this is a discussion purely about the effect of CSMs on the basic strategy player, what your considerable research into the area has produced.
In particular, why don't you tell us what is potentially wrong with my categorical statements that: a) In general, CSMs will have virtually no cut-card effect compared to conventional dealing procedures, and, therefore, will produce slightly less disadvantage for the BS player than will normal shoe games; and b) the variance of outcomes is not changed for the BS player simply because he plays at a CSM table.
Failing to do either, why don't you do us all a favor and, to be polite, . . . remain silent.
Don
According to your book, when you get down to one deck level, basic strategy itself is worth much more.
BS is worth more at the count of zero. It's worth LESS at other, more extreme counts. Summed over all counts, by definition, it CAN'T change! (See bottom of page 78, top of page 79, of BJA.)
Don
You wrote: "BS is worth more at the count of zero. It's worth LESS at other, more extreme counts. Summed over all counts, by definition, it CAN'T change!"
When you say extreme, you mean at extreme negative counts. Basic strategy is worth more at high counts and less at low counts and more in the middle. Since middle counts are the average of high and low counts and occur with the greatest frequency, basic strategy should be worth more. In other words:
high counts: basic strategy is worth more
counts of 0: basic strategy is worth more
Low counts: basic strategy is worth less
the first two beat the 3rd and when summed all together basic strategy changes.
What am I missing?
You raise a perfectly valid point. Do CSM's really operate in a truly random manner after each round as many of us assume, or are there statistically significant anomolies we should study? I agree that until there is proper study and data taken, we cannot conclude that CSM's are truly random. If I had a spare team of scientists I'd get right on the problem myself, but they are busy on other tasks at the moment :-)
Seriously though, it would be interesting to study but probably the reason few have tackled it is that it will be difficult, and it doesn't at first glance seem likely to have exploitable results. I'm interested in ideas you'd have for how to go about studying the CSM's. IMHO topics for research would be:
How quickly and thoroughly do cards placed in the rear of the machine make it back into play?
Are there any patterns in the way cards return to play - could the machines be sequenced?
Are the cards taken from the machine randomly distributed?
I'm interested in your thoughts. Like I said, it seems like it could be a lot of work with little reward, but it's interesting academically if nothing else. I'd think that the designers of these machines have already asked themselves these questions but maybe not. If there were exploitable results, you'd have to keep them quiet. If the makers found out, they might be able to change the inner workings without any outside clues. You might sit at a game thinking you know what's up all the while the machine is working differently. On the plus side there'd be less heat at a CSM, but I've heard of people getting the boot while playing a CSM.
BTW, I don't think your comment was "smart-assed", I knew what you were getting at, but it came across a bit accusatory in context of the banter I've seen between you and Don in the past, but that's neither here nor there.
if a casino advantage has slightly decreased then variance will also decrease. Is this true or am I an idiot,troll or something??
I surely hope the free page communutiy will NOT attack me as GC did for simply disagreeing with you.
"if a casino advantage has slightly decreased then variance will also decrease. Is this true or am I an idiot,troll or something??"
TG, it's terrbily tempting to say, "all of the above," but I'm trying to be good for the holidays! :-)
One place allows das, one doesn't. Which is better for the BS player? Answer: the one with das. Which produces greater variance? Answer: the one with das. Hmmmmm.
Don
BS isn't worth more at the higher counts, in the sense that it isn't worth as much as the count would have you think it's worth!
See the bottom of page 78 (Griffin speaking), and read more slowly!!
Don
is still worth more at higher counts though. I would check your book but it's loaned out to a friend. When you remove low cards basic strategy is worth more. That is what the effects of removal are all about! By altering the playing strategy, we can improve the edge even more. I'm still confused.
high count - we still gain, whether or not it is not as much as it seems
medium count - we still gain
low count - we lose a little
Again, the top two outbeat the one.
If you count, we know your advantage at each count and we know the frequency of those counts. If you play BS, we really don't pay much attention to your advantage at each count, but it's there nonetheless.
As we deal more deeply into the pack, the edges at all counts vary, due to the floating advantage. But only the counter is in position to take advantage of these variations. By definition, the basic strategy player can't possibly alter his EV, simply because we're deeper into the pack. If he could, he'd simply stand by a shoe, wait until four decks had been dealt, and jump in! I'm sure you realize that this is NOT a valid way for the BS player to increase his edge. He ISN'T counting, so penetration is of no value to him.
Now, you've asked why, and I (and Griffin) have answered twice already. I'm afraid that's going to be it for me, especially since it's spelled out in BJA.
Don
In particular, why don't you tell us what is potentially wrong with my categorical statements that: a) In general, CSMs will have virtually no cut-card effect compared to conventional dealing procedures, and, therefore, will produce slightly less disadvantage for the BS player than will normal shoe games; and b) the variance of outcomes is not changed for the BS player simply because he plays at a CSM table.
a) They will have no cut-card effect, but they create unique effects themselves. In the case of the most common csm, the shuffle point is partly determined by the play of the hands. With all players standing every card will be returned to the pack. With several players taking a hit, up to 14 cards will remain unavailable for play. Obviously this impacts basic strategy advantage, since the playing decisions have an effect on the actual composition of the pack.
b) I don't agree with Golf Cart's "static" theory. I doubt that the variance would change much, except insofar as BS edge changes.
IF, big bleaping IF,IF,IF, CSMs do as advertized and LICENSED!, then normal distribution of the cards back into the remainder of the pack, other than the 2-5 ready trays, will actually result in a squared distributive latency. A card that is twice as far back, as another given card, will actually require four times as many cards to be played out, than the shallower card.
Needless to say there is not very much done to study squared skew distributions!!!!
My reply was in respect to csms and shoes using the SAME rules.
"In general, CSMs will have virtually no cut-card effect compared to conventional dealing procedures, and, therefore, will produce "slightly LESS disadvantage" for the BS player than will normal shoe games; and b) the variance of outcomes is not changed for the BS player simply because he plays at a CSM table."
If a player has slightly decreased the casino advantage then they have also slightly decreased variance, no?
Let us stick to the issue and not change tunes.
