The post was about the SM King's lengthening of the different "phases" which occur in multi-deck shoes.
With this crucial point in mind, perhaps you might care to reread it.
The post was about the SM King's lengthening of the different "phases" which occur in multi-deck shoes.
With this crucial point in mind, perhaps you might care to reread it.
matches that of the bogus TARGET system.
...that he didn't read the message, jumped to incorrect conclusions, then started talking down to me for what he *thought* I said.
I am not familiar with "target," and from what I've heard about it, do not intend to become familiar with it. Got better uses for my time.
I am not responsible for someone else misappropriating perfectly good and useful terminology.
Why does this remind me of the D.C. city official who got raked over the coals for using the perfectly good and appropriate word "niggardly?" Emotion over reason? Oversensitivity?
OldCootFrom VA, I apologize if you felt I was talking down to you. That was not my intention. My response to your post had nothing to do with TARGET playing strategy. You indicated you are trying to predict steaks on a CSM (continuous shuffle machine). There are two types of continuous shuffle machines. One type replaces the cards immediately so that there is no chance to beat the game. Then there are the kinds in Minnesota where 6 decks are played while another six just happen to be shuffled at the same time. If you are up against the Minnesota type machines you have a chance. If you are up against a machine that that immediately replaces the cards you are wasting your time. That is all that I meant. Sorry to upset you.
I was pointing out that the terminology you used had been hijacked, by its use in Jerry Patterson's highly bogus TARGET. Because of that some others did not take you as seriously as they should have.
>You indicated you are trying to predict steaks on a CSM (continuous shuffle machine...<
I did no such thing. Please retrace through the thread and re-read the post.
What I *did* say was that such "phases" do occur. I also *specifically* said they occur in random fashion, as would be expected with a more or less randomly shuffled shoe.
This is the *exact opposite* of predicting or trying to predict anything. How you could read that post at come to the conclusions you did is a mystery to me.
Also, the real point of the post is that the SM King machine (according to my observations, which were subsequently explained/verified by Clarke Cant) seems to lengthen the duration of the various phases.
Anyway, 'nuff said and apology accepted. If you'll reread the post and Clarke Cant's responses to it with the above in mind, I'm sure you'll see what I was talking about.
No, you didn't accuse me of anything.
Indeed, you sprang to my defense, which I sincerely appreciate.
I guess I was just venting frustration at being so completely misunderstood and utterly misinterpreted.
If the cards were being shuffled in the pack, with cards being extracted and reinserted, there would be a distributed latency where the more rounds you counted the more likely it is that the card has aleady re-appeared, canceling your count. In such machines the maximum profit would come from counting the cards last seen, for the rounds that approximate 2/3rds the total number of cards in that shoe, and dropping the count for the cards seen more than 2/3rds of the pack ago (see one of my links to Blackjack Therapy here). Such machines the CSMs are NOT, even though all the known licensing agreements and ads state that the current CSMs provide a normal distribution of cards to be dealt. They don't! They make gaming control boards a total math illiterate joke! They should either be boycotted, or ploppies, that at least know basic strategy, but are unwilling to learn valid risk or ruin and bankroll management, should be pointed toward them to, in agregate, remove the casino's edge.
Instead the CSMs just insert the discards, with depth coming from a random number generator. The distribution is a squared skew distribution instead, where extra delay in seeing a specific card indicates that card was sent deep into the pack.
That actually makes some of the progressionist claims about streaks and some of the TARGET claims, which don't apply to normal games, TRUE ONLY FOR CSMs! The difference is in that squared skew distribution.
The rest I believe I have already covered!
There are two types of continuous shuffle machines. One type replaces the cards immediately so that there is no chance to beat the game. Then there are the kinds in Minnesota where 6 decks are played while another six just happen to be shuffled at the same time.
The second type you mention is not a CSM (Continuous Shuffle Machine) at all, but merely an automatic shuffler.
Counting cards at tables utilizing these machines is no different than at tables where the cards are hand shuffled.
In fact, there is actually a small benefit to be derived from use of these machines, as it speeds up the game - there is less time wasted while the dealer shuffles.
Of course, if one is trying to shuffle track, it is a different story.
I don't think the "French Academy" response would have given your posts any breathing room to be fairly considered. I still cannot take the credit you give me. Thanks!
and it had to be said somewhere;-)
>Counting cards at tables utilizing these machines is no different than at tables where the cards are hand shuffled.<
Actually, counting cards at tables with automatic shufflers will be *more* effective than counting cards at tables where large shoes are manually shuffled.
The reason for this is the machines deliver a *much* more thorough shuffle, making the distributions of cards within the shoe much closer to "random."
Manual shuffles of large shoes almost always result in undershuffling, which works to the detrement of both BS and counting.
Shuffle tracking, when not too well done. Sorry I couldn't resist.
Reading the end of your study makes understand completely what you are trying to do. It sounds like you are trying to calculate the rise and fall of electrons in an atom over a period of time to devise a prediction of the electron's next move. I am not drunk. But your study and theory are very interesting. I hope you come up with a wonderful discovery, profit off of it and make it available for purchase if it turns out successful.
Please cite for me any of the text in my post which indicates to you that I am trying to "predict" anything.
I really have to question your reading comprehension abilities.
Please be patient as you read this...
Your claim about shuffles being more complete, and therefore, detectablybeing more profitable. This is one of the major fallicies of TARGET. What he is thus doing, despite the rest of your comments being rooted in rational analysis, is jumping to the conclusion that you are some sort of TARGETier overall
All of the studies that have been done about incomplete shuffles generally have concluded that they actually help the player to a limited degree. This is especially true when there is an odd number of initial hands against the dealer. But it is still a minor effect overall.
Please read, or re-read, the latest edition of Profesional Blackjack by Wong and his comments about the no shuffle simulations. If you think about it you can see where the player benefits. Whether by not shuffling at all, or by having banger bends that physically matchup for high cards and low cards, like cards follow like cards slightly more often on occasions. Go through all the combinations that occur if a dealer recieves a pair of low cards, and a pair of high cards, as they hit. Take a deck if you will and shuffle just the black suits and add the red suits so the deck is all pairs.
You should find that instead of the assumption this hurts a player it actually helps. But there is selective observation in play at times. You see less quirky deck orders with the shuffle machine (not CSM) games but you forget that the clumped combinations probably gave you more oney. One can be so frustrated at strange deck orders one can not notice that overall one is winning in such situations.
Now with your stated belief in these fallicies, you are taking a valid look at where real biases can occur because of a different, a radically different, type of latency. There some TARGETlike claims are actually valid. But you have already shown one small tendency to lean in that direction.
You have a flawed belief, but MilkMan has a bigger one. He is throwing the baby out with the bath water, by using your one fallicy, to latch onto it, and toss-out your entire set of observations.
>You should find that instead of the assumption this hurts a player it actually helps.<
Dammit, it is *not*, repeat *NOT*, an assumption.
To REPEAT what I said in my initial post on the subject:
I made extensive runs of a "sim" using a computer random shuffle vs. a "model" of the stutter shuffle for the conditions then extant in Atlantic City (hidden hole card, etc.).
The computerized basic strategy players did worse and the hi-lo counters did worse with the model than they did under the sim. In fact, the counters were left with an essentially even game.
But I was still skeptical about card-bunching theory; so I examined all the shoes after stutter shuffles for contiguous pairs (the ultimate and most easily detectable like-card bunch) and found the model produced 3% more pairs than the math said should be there, while the CRS sim shuffle produced the predicted number of pairs.
"NO SHUFFLE" STUDIES:
These are, IMHO, *completely* invalid.
First, it never happens in real life.
Second, the degree of like card bunching would be totally different both in "quality" and "quantity" than that produced by a 6-deck stutter shuffle.
Thus, again IMHO, "no shuffle" studies do not prove a damned thing.
But my model's production of 3% more pairs in the shoe definitely *does* prove something.
And my model's results that both BS players and counters do worse with a stutter shuffle than with a CRS definitely *does* prove something.
Sorry, they are wrong and I am right on this one.
IMPORTANT CAVEAT:
Please note I am not claiming there is *any* possibility of predicting *anything* due to like card bunching.
All I have said is:
1) it is bad for the player;
2) under shuffling of large shoes (specifically the stutter shuffle) produces more of it; and
3) "no shuffle" studies cannot possibly produce shoes anything like those which are produced by a stutter shuffle, and are therefore utterly worthless.
FINAL WORD:
Fortunately, the question is largely moot, since automatic shufflers have largely replaced inadequate manual shuffles, and the automatic shufflers produce a very good shuffle which, from an outcome point of view, is indistinguishable from a computer random shuffle.
Like card clumping again versus this increase in pairs. The reason I say that is that this stutter shuffle model depends upon something else that is not found in real play: the number of initial spots in play staying the same. Yes the shuffle machines get rid of that, but so does a ploppie or two failing to make proper pair splits, or any spot having a ploppie siting out more often than once in every 20 rounds.
You might have something about the no-shuffle not being the same as the stutter shuffle and Wong's argument not being so absolute, that by examining the extremes, and not coming up with certain claimed effects at them, that those effects never occur with anything inbetween, but this is no reason to say amen to a solution that strikes the ability to shuffle track. That is a very bad trade. Before the stutter shuffle starts to form any bias that could lead to this increase in pairing, you probably have to have around 6 shoes with no change in the number of initial spots played. That estimate is based on long it took for not shuffling at all to show its biases.
Bj21 uses cookies, this enables us to provide you with a personalised experience. More info