I currently count cards and am interested in possibly learning shuffle tracking. Is it worth the extra effort? Are most shuffles trackable? I live on the east coast-are the shuffles used in AC and the indian casinos trackable? And, what books should I read to learn shuffle tracking?
Thanks.
Tracking takes considerable extra effort, for which you will be well compensated. Soloists generally earn a much higher hourly EV tracking than they do counting. There is an element of intrinsic cover to the game, also, which tends to enhance longevity.
No one is likely to post the locations of trackable games on the free pages, or even on the green pages. In any case, until you can recognize trackable shuffles yourself, you cannot attempt to play them.
One of Snyder's books -- someone else will probably remember which -- has what I think is the best published work on the subject, although his method is exceptionally difficult to many counters. One of those poker guys (Malmuth? they blend...) has written a wholly baffling account of what he terms "card domination" in a blackjack book. I don't know of much else on the subject -- others probably do.
No one is likely to post the locations of trackable games on the free pages, or even on the green pages. In any case, until you can recognize trackable shuffles yourself, you cannot attempt to play them.
Deciding what is and what is not trackable is a bit arbitary. Technically, unless the dealer shuffles out of view, every shuffle is theoretically trackable. It depends on your eyeballing skills. Some shuffles by novice dealers come pretty close to meeting the statistical criteria for randomness but can be beaten by someone with good eyeballing skills.
One of Snyder's books -- someone else will probably remember which -- has what I think is the best published work on the subject, although his method is exceptionally difficult to many counters.
Blackbelt in Blackjack, but get the shuffle-tracking series from RGE instead, its much more comprehensive.
One of those poker guys (Malmuth? they blend...) has written a wholly baffling account of what he terms "card domination" in a blackjack book.
Mason Malmuth yes, in Blackjack Essays. This was a very farsighted piece of work when it was written but its a bit outdated now.
Any info. on how the RGE series is different from George C.'s "Shuffle Tracking for Beginners?"
Thanks for all the info.
I read several reviews which suggested that George C walked the walk but apparently had trouble talking the talk ie he was a very successful player but had difficulty getting the concepts across.
Personally I found his infrequent contributions here quite lucid so I can't comment.
They are both worth purchasing depending on one's goals. George C's Shuffle Tracking for Dummies (Beginners? What is it called now?) provides one very specific and simplified implementation of shuffle tracking. It gives a method that might be described as a more easily realizable approach for the 'average' counter. Snyder discusses more of the nuts and bolts, i.e. the basic theory behind shuffle tracking. I would suggest this as a better launch pad to the more dedicated student. I definitely learned from them both.
There are several pieces on shuffle tracking in the archives. Yet another reason to join Green Chip.
In addition, check out www.bjmath.com.
One more resource worth reading is Dennis Suggs "Shuffle-tracking 101" available at my old homepage:- here
I think its the best introduction to the subject available.
First, full disclosure: I am by no means an expert on shuffle tracking. I have dabbled in it a little bit, with moderate success. I have used a fairly intuitive, seat-of-the pants approach. If you are serious, you should try to be as rigorous as possible.
For shuffle tracking, you should use a blanced, ace-reckoned count. Hi/Lo is most common, but Halves and Revere Point Count are also feasible. The easiest shuffles to track are single pass shuffles. These are shuffles where each group of cards is riffled with just one other group of cards of approximately equal number. With a single pass shuffle, an approximation is possible which sacrifices some accuracy, but makes the process much simpler. You identify one segment of rich count and follow it through the shuffle, assuming that the cards it is mixed with are of average composition. For example, if you have identified a 0ne deck section with a RC of +6, the remaining 5 decks have a RC of -6. The one deck segmant has a TC 0f +6. The remaining 5 decks have a TC 0f -1.2. If you mix your +6 deck with a -1.2 deck, you will end up with 2 decks at +4.8, or a TC of +2.4. If you have the cut card, you cut these two decks to the top. If not, you try to observe where they end up, and bet bigger when you reach this segment. Of course, the assumption that the segment that your segment gets mixed with is of average composition introduces quite a bit of error into the process. It is entirely possible that your +6 deck gets mixed with a -6 deck, leaving two decks that are neutral. However, most of the time it works pretty well. You will find that the count drops just about where you expect it to.
The easiest segment to track is the cutoffs. If you keep your count until the last card is dealt, you know the count of the cutoffs. Unfortunately, many casinos will break the cutoffs into three segments and insert them into three different places in the discards. The second easiest segment to track is the top of the shoe.
You just remember the count at your stopping point, and reverse the sign. For segments in the middle of the shoe, you have to use the difference between starting and ending points, and reverse the sign.
Note that this is only feasible for some form of single pass shuffle. If, as is fairly common, a second round of riffling is done, any segment that you track will make up only 1/4 of the final mix. At this point, you really have to have the whole shoe and shuffle mapped out and know the count of all the pieces, which is much more difficult to do in casino conditions.
