shuffle tracking

it sounds hard Is it? And is it detectable?

to perform without loads of practice and a good memory. It is detectable.

You can without risk try to cut low cards to the top.So, you still count the traditional way and you still start your shoes with a minimum bet but you will get more favorable situations that way.
Don't be too obvious when you watch the plug-in action. My girl friend once got into trouble when she used her chips as a reminder of the slugs.
Whenever you grab a chip the dealer will notice because he thinks that you want to cap your bet. If that isn't the case he will wonder what the hell you're doing.So be careful.

Francis Salmon

cut the favorable cards to be the final cards dealt. You lose the disguise benefits of ST, but if you are right you will have a strong positive count going into your slug. If you don't have the count you're looking for you know that it is likely that you missed your cut.

Tracking is unlike other advantage plays. Not only do you need to know what you're doing, you must have the visual accumen to pull it off.

Some of the best APs do not have the ability to do it. Either you are fortunate enough to be able to track or you don't. It is not something you just learn.

Arnold Snyder has written extensively about this.

Regards,
PM

You mean put the small cards on top of the shoe ? If this is what you mean, this is very bad and you are plain wrong. You will end up loosing your time counting small cards (to get a positive count ???) and play into a positive decks somewhere from the middle of the shoe till you reach the cut card on a positive count and some (or most?) of your big cards behind the cut card...Not at all the way to track a game. Beside all this, the eye will see your count raise and then see you bet more as the shoe is depleted. No good for camo at all.

In traditional counting you would like to see small cards as soon as possible, so what's wrong with cutting small cards to the top?
I don't quite see your point: When you manage to get a count of +20 after 1 deck and start raising your bets,does it really matter when the shoe ends say with an RC of +8? You'll have had an effective TC of +3 throughout the shoe.
For me the aim of shuffle tracking is not camo but to win more money.
The way I'm doing it, they might suspect me of counting the cards (this is hard to hide anyway) but they will not suspect me of tracking the shuffle.

Francis Salmon

You have the whole concept of tracking plain wrong.

The objective of tracking is to locate SLUG(S) OF HIGH CARDS and BET TO IT. Your way of cutting low cards to the top of the shoe doesn't do that because isntead of capitalizing on a high value slug you are wasting small bets, time and EV over low cards and you will never know where your money slug is untill you have reach the cut card. You take a high advantage game (tracking) and reduce it to a counter's edge which is a poor game if you compare both.

Say you cut a 1.5 deck (maybe 2) slug of small cards to the top...
Say the penetration on a 6 deck game is average, we'll settle for 4.5/6
You are now looking at a raising count for 1.5 deck and play the remaining cards in hope that you will see the high cards before the shuffle. Can you picture how much better it would be to cut a slug of high cards to the top ? Your play zone won't be diluted and by the time you will place your big bets you won't look like a counter.

I will tell you only one thing. The real reason you are tracking the way you say is primary because YOU HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN YOUR TRACKING GAME and prefer playing a worse EV game BUT make sure the count rise so you can bet big along the way. This way, when you miss you "low cards slug" and the count doesn't rise, you have to option to see your mistake and not bet the big bets into garbage.

This may be fine for you. However, this is not the way competent trakers work and this is a bad advice you gave to Joseph.

Cutting small cards to the top of the shoe accomplishes very little and actually increases the house edge against you. It is what a skilled dealer would do to you if they were trying to screw you. Yes you create a big positive running count, but you have to bet through a deck of crap AND a large number of the big cards you're looking for will be behind the cut card and you'll never get to see them. If you're going to cut small cards anywhere (if those are the only ones you can spot) you should simply cut them out of play and add your best guess of RC to your off the top of the shoe RC and begin counting right there (simple way).

While you can knock out the house edge by cutting small cards out of play, you will make much more money tracking and cutting big cards into play. If you cut big cards to the top of the shoe you can bet big to start a new shoe and get the benefits of the cover that style creates, although if you don't have good skills you'll never know how good the cut was until after you've already put out the money. If you cut big cards to the deck or segment before the cut card arrives you will have some evidence before you make a bet about the accuracy of your cut since the TC should be fairly high. In exchange for this extra knowledge about your cut you lose the benefits that betting big off the top affords you in terms of cover. Although on average you normally have to wait 4 shoes to get 1 good one, if you can ST and cut a good slug, you can always create a good shoe in no more than 2 shoes and no casino surveillance department can catch you in only two shoes. Your effective positive TC frequency for your game goes way up which means you can use a more conservative spread on those shoes and get a game that plays more like double deck or even single deck.

We have to make a distinction between what is desirable and what is doable.I agree with you 100% that it would be best to cut big cards to the top or to cut small cards out of play.But don't we all agree that this is very ambitious?
Before I integrated ST into my play I made extensive tests at my kitchentable. After months of training, I had still an error rate of about 30% tracking MY OWN SHUFFLE.I also found out that with an error rate of 20% or higher while trying to cut low cards out of play the benefits of ST would be totally annihilated.
I gave Joseph this advice because he is obviously a beginner and the errors he would make that way wouldn't cost him anything.
Occasionally, I do use the risky methods but I need to be pretty sure that I'm right.
One more thing: In Europe we can play much bigger spreads, so playing through slugs of slow cards doesn't cost much in comparison.

Francis Salmon

Cutting small cards to the top of the shoe accomplishes very little and actually increases the house edge against you. It is what a skilled dealer would do to you if they were trying to screw you.

Tell me where I can find such a dealer and I will rush there (:-)!
You probably meant cutting big cards out of play which is absolutely not the same.

If you're going to cut small cards anywhere (if those are the only ones you can spot) you should simply cut them out of play and add your best guess of RC to your off the top of the shoe RC and begin counting right there (simple way).

See my feasability post.

If you cut big cards to the deck or segment before the cut card arrives you will have some evidence before you make a bet about the accuracy of your cut since the TC should be fairly high.

This is similar to what I suggest with the difference that you run a high risk that the big-card-slug will end up behind the cut card since you cannot be sure where the dealer will actually put the red card.For safety reasons I would cut a high-card-slug to the middle of the shoe.
I agree with the rest of your post but do you really want to leave after having played only two shoes? Here in Europe we have to drive a 100 miles to get to the next casino!

Francis Salmon

We are loosing our time.

With Salmon, say the earth is a ball and he will tell you how ignorant you are cause it's not. Say the earth isn't a perfect ball and he will tell you how stupid you are cause this is maybe the best way to explain it to a 3 years old, etc.

He's a "know-it-all" to the last decimal with obviously very limited Blackjack experience.

I am done with this thread. Every important thing has been said.

With only 8578 hours spent at the tables I have obviously very limited Blackjack experience.

you're on the phone or in the bathroom while that first deck of crap cards is being dealt.

Eating 8578 TV dinners doesn't qualify anybody as a chef nor driving a car 8578 miles qualifies you as a mechanic.