slug tracking

any thoughts on the advantage of slug tracking over just ace or natural tracking in shoe games ?

"any thoughts on the advantage of slug tracking over just ace or natural tracking in shoe games?"

IMHO slug tracking is better than just ace tracking alone. If you're slug tracking you'll know what kind of cards are around the ace. If you're just ace tracking (steering?) you only have an idea of where an ace is and not the value of the cards that it gets married with. Wouldn't it be better to know that the ace mixed in with a bunch of face cards rather than small cards? Would you increase your bet if you knew the ace was contained within a group of small cards?

With slug tracking, I would think that you're advantageous situations would last longer. With ace tracking, once the ace comes out, you're done until the next ace is "due". With slug tracking, you play a whole slug that you KNOW is rich. You know the value (and placement) of the whole slug - not just where the aces are. Segment tracking mixed with ace tracking would be a lethal combination if you could do it. This would be very difficult.

I would be interested in hearing from others as well. Br. Cyclops, care to elaborate?

JB

As Johnny points out, together these methods yield more than the sum of the parts would suggest. Predicting the appearance of an ace via location play in a tracked slug of tens is very strong.
You will rarely have losing sessions if you can combine both techniques accurately even in games which would not be particulary good for either solo trackers or solo location players.

Putting a figure on the gain from such an approach is difficult because of the multitude of shuffle types-however going on the basis of experience I would say if you can perform both disciplines simultaneously without more than the odd error then do so, you will be rewarded many times over for your effort.

No need to use both. Don't think anyone can do both at the same time by themselves.
Ace tracking is almost obsolette, to be able to use it you need a perfect dealer, perfect single riffle shuffle+ huge bet jumps because of the high edge when it does come into play. It is difficult to calculate the precise edge due to the variability of the dealer. But I were you I will tend to be more conservative using it.

But I haven't meant a card counter in my life, so what do I know?

Methinks you're trolling.

No need to use both. Don't think anyone can do both at the same time by themselves.

I know about a dozen people who can manage it. The error rate tends to be high but not high enough to wipe out the considerable extra gain.

Ace tracking is almost obsolette, to be able to use it you need a perfect dealer, perfect single riffle shuffle+ huge bet jumps because of the high edge when it does come into play.

These are common misconceptions which need to be addressed. You do not need a perfect dealer or a single perfect riffle. This is like the misconception about card counting that states it is obsolete because the casinos do not deal down to the last card nowadays.

Two riffles are perfectly acceptable. Three riffles can still provide a useful extra advantage to the counter or slug tracker who can incorporate location play.
Dealers who riffle sloppily may be even more valuable than expert dealers. Sloppy dealers tend to leave a slug of cards in pre-shuffle order with each deck segment. The skilled card locator knows how to take advantage of this information.

Finally, large bet jumps are not required. Just underbet your advantage. You can largely compensate for this by raising your overall bet size. The absolute profit in terms of money won tends to be similar to raising your bet optimally, even though you technically have a lower % advantage.

It is difficult to calculate the precise edge due to the variability of the dealer.

True, but this is even more of a problem for the slug tracker. You can obtain a much more accurate estimate of your advantage by closely watching the dealer's riffle action and/or estimating the frequency of each riffle.

But I were you I will tend to be more conservative using it.

Good advice.

Now, I know the theoritical advantages of shuffle tracking.

The casino I frequent, uses (I am talking about two decks now) a precise method followed by all dealer shufflers with almost no changes.

But my point is this:

After all, the cards (2 decks divided in 4 parts) are shuffled by dividing and riffling. While I admit that all the 26 and the 52 cards (in first and second shuffle) don't precisely interweave, they DO GET MIXED from one end to the other. As observed, it looks like 1-6 card bunches, may be, move together. How the heck do you track the cards with any measure of reliability?

All the references to shuffle tracking that I have seen in print (Snyder, Schlesinger, Wong etc. )maintain that it cannot be used with any advantage with the exception of the TARGET guru Patterson.

Is it all a good hoax?

Shuffle tracking is best applied to multi-deck shoes. It is very rare to find a double deck shuffle that is exploitable for tracking slugs. As you noted, usually the decks are shuffled together at least once, if not twice in their entirety.

After all, the cards (2 decks divided in 4 parts) are shuffled by dividing and riffling. While I admit that all the 26 and the 52 cards (in first and second shuffle) don't precisely interweave, they DO GET MIXED from one end to the other. As observed, it looks like 1-6 card bunches, may be, move together. How the heck do you track the cards with any measure of reliability?

If you memorize cards preceding an ace into the discard tray with this shuffle, you will find they are good predictors of when those aces will appear. This is the basis of location play. I agree slug or segment tracking is not much use here.

All the references to shuffle tracking that I have seen in print (Snyder, Schlesinger, Wong etc. )maintain that it cannot be used with any advantage with the exception of the TARGET guru Patterson.

You are confusing legitimate forms of shuffle-tracking with what is known as "clumping", which the TARGET system supposedly exploits. This is a bogus concept.
None of the authors you mention disagree with the validity of shuffle-tracking as a form of advantage play. All of the authors you mention disagree with the validity of TARGET and other methods designed to exploit clumping.

First, I must admit up front that I have never attempted to do just the ace tracking/steering/sequencing thing. Like Johnny Bravo, the way I look at it is this: Why get only the milk when you can have that and the whole cow for the same amount of work?
@^!
Or why track (or by any other name, "locate") JUST aces? Last time I checked, it still took an ace AND a face (or ten) to make a natural!
@^D
This sort of touches on my theory that counts which treat aces as neutral or that have a side count for aces would tend to be much less accurate for tracking purposes than a count that just simply treats aces as a big card. I have no proof, it�s just a personal theory. I have long wished that one of the math gurus could figure out a way to SIM this, if it�s possible.
@^)
As for me, I'd certainly rather know where the rich slugs are. As JB said, if you track a given ace, and it ends up nestled among a bunch of small cards, I tend to think that ace is going to be of a lot less benefit than another ace that�s in the company of a bunch of big cards. The latter is going to be a lot more likely to produce a natural.
@^!
The only reason I could maybe see for "ace locating" over regular tracking would maybe be because of a personal aptitude thing: Maybe a particular individual has troubles with slugs but can effectively track aces. In that case, even if ace locating IS less effective than slug tracking, the choice would obvious: 2nd best would be better than nothing.
@^)
Agreed, if you could do both, it would be pretty lethal, but my simple little 4-cylinder brain (with a lot of hard miles on it, BTW!) could never pull that off. -Hats off to those who could!
Mine is merely a drop in the vast sea of BJ opinions.
Take care,
@^)
Cyclops
P.S. to Johnny Bravo: In a related post in another thread, you stated that you felt George C.�s shuffle tracking book was NOT for beginners. I inquired as to why you thought so, since it is entitled "Shuffle Tracking For Beginners" (I think.) I figured you didn�t see my reply question on that thread (its pretty far buried by now) so I am re-asking it here�.

First, I believe your question was posed in serious earnest, and so it deserves to be treated as such.
@^)
About what I said in this post's heading:
I say that because tracking basically uses the same principles of traditional counting, but simply approaches it from another direction.

"The casino I frequent, uses (I am talking about two decks now) a precise method followed by all dealer shufflers with almost no changes."
-I have never found a situation where a well shuffled 2D was trackable. It may exist, but I have never found one. Tracking is primarily for shoe games.

"....As observed, it looks like 1-6 card bunches, may be, move together. How the heck do you track the cards with any measure of reliability?"
-I have omitted some of the shuffle description here for ske of brevity. Again, the example you gave is that of a 2D game. Not realistically trackable in my experience. But you've actually sort of helped prove my point. In such a small number of cards as 104 cards (2 decks) it is simply to hard to pinpoint with any accuracy, the location of any possible slugs.
However, when you increase the numberof cards in question to 312, and large slugs (sometimes as large in size as 78-85 cards ) can and do occur. Tracking is simply visualizing WHERE those cards are, and (if the are a slug of high cards) betting up.

"All the references to shuffle tracking that I have seen in print (Snyder, Schlesinger, Wong etc. )maintain that it cannot be used with any advantage with the exception of the TARGET guru Patterson."
-I am not aware that Paterson has ever advocated tracking, but i am absolutely sure you are wrong about The Bishop. (Arnold Snyder). When it somes to tracking, he is The Original man. He didn't invent it, but he certainly was the guy who first refined it, and brought it to a whole new level, and I am damn glad he did!
@^)
Hell, "Blackbelt In Blackjack" (by Snyder) is most people's first tracking book!

From your above statement, I can see that your exposure to tracking is minimal. No offense meant. If you have a copy of BBin BJ, check ou tthe chapter on tracking and try some of the exersizes.

"Is it all a good hoax?"
-Nope its for real, but its not for everybody.
Take care,
@^)
Cyclops

first of all thanks for all the great replies to my previous post on this subject.ok im just beginning to work on this,i have always just used traditional counting,but my next question is about the methods.I read somewhere,i believe by jerry patterson a method that is what i would call mapping the shoes with chips.i personally thought this looked pretty difficult and dang near impossible to get by with because of constant restacking of chips,especially shuffling them as the dealer shuffles.Im thinking would it be feasible to use sequencing of predictors to track these slugs.

Slug tracking and ace sequencing are just 2 more arrows for your quiver. Different strategies are better for different types of shuffles. Shuffles with lots of riffles and strips but only 1 pass are good for segment tracking but terrible for sequencing.

I don't know where you live but there are very few good shuffles left in the US. It is good to have knowledge of these things in case you walk into a place and see a great shuffle but if the plan is to learn to ace sequence and go out and play that exclusively then I think you are wasting your time... at least in the US.

Thanks to everyone for setting me straight.

I had assumed that tracking 2D (much fewer cards, fewer shuffles)should be much easier and should therefore be attempted before one tries the more complicated 6Deck with so many more cards and the shuffle with more steps.

I had also confused clumping with shuffle tracking (after all it was a "clump" of cards you were trying to follow and locate to the end).

Besides Black Belt (Which I will be buying shortly) any other references or analysis or archives --kind of a "shuffle track 101"?

If effective, may be this will add another arsenal to my BJ attack (with apologies to Don).

I am still scratching my head, though, as to how you can thwart the effect of mixing of cards from one set to an unrelated set, oftentimes twice or more. But from reading all the posts, it does look like it can be exploited to one's advantage.

Thanks to all the responders.

Or why track (or by any other name, "locate") JUST aces? Last time I checked, it still took an ace AND a face (or ten) to make a natural!

Well, an ace gets you a 50% edge assuming your other card is random.

This sort of touches on my theory that counts which treat aces as neutral or that have a side count for aces would tend to be much less accurate for tracking purposes than a count that just simply treats aces as a big card. I have no proof, it�s just a personal theory. I have long wished that one of the math gurus could figure out a way to SIM this, if it�s possible.

I seem to recall a rgb study on this. The conclusion was that yes, you are right, but given the huge extra advantage of tracking it does not make a lot of difference.

As for me, I'd certainly rather know where the rich slugs are. As JB said, if you track a given ace, and it ends up nestled among a bunch of small cards, I tend to think that ace is going to be of a lot less benefit than another ace that�s in the company of a bunch of big cards. The latter is going to be a lot more likely to produce a natural.

Finding the ace is enough, trust me. The other cards will take care of themselves. One factor you may not be considering: the chance of you and the dealer getting an ace is not the same.
The ceiling on segment tracking is not much higher than card counting under optimal conditions-3-4%. With location play you could be looking at ten times that under the hypothetical single perfect riffle scenario presented earlier.
The difficulty is finding the optimal conditions. However, such games do exist. Serious ace locators simply develop a good intelligence network and a love of travel. If a single-riffle game is offered in Ruritania, they will fly out to Ruritania that evening. In exchange they work a tenth of the hours of a segment tracker for ten times the profits.

Let x= %edge for being dealt Ace, from theory of blackjack

j = current edge from true count-edge from Ace

f = your edge for dealer having an Ace

y = probability of Ace landing appearing in this round, can be calculated using simulations of shuffles by dealers of different consistency.

u = variance for counting edge

d = variance of Ace location

g = probability of Ace appearing in dealer's hand.

h = probability of Ace landing on your hand

i = number of hands you play/number of hands you play+1

k = 1/total number of hands

z = Additional edge gain by Ace, excluding count information.

Hence z = y(i*h*x)-(k*g*f))

So edge using true count and Ace location is:
z - i*coefficient of hands*j

d = ((i*h*x)^2-z)+((k*g*f)-z)^2

Using location information for betting:

z/d* br

Using counting informationa and Ace location

(z/d+j/u)*br

Please check this for me.

"Well, an ace gets you a 50% edge assuming your other card is random."-But that doesn't mean your total overall edge over the house is 50%!
@^/
I acknowledge that knowing the location of aces would be worth an added edge over not knowing.
But in a 6 deck shoe there are only 24 aces mixed in with 312. Whereas if you are tracking slugs, there are 120 high cards out of that same 312. A much higher number and a much greater probability for heavy concentrations, aka slugs. Better odds of hitting those slugs when more of them exist and they are larger in size.
@^)
Also, when you only have 24 cards (aces) you can track out of a total of 312, inconsistent dealer grabs would easily and quickly cause havoc on your locating accuracy.
On the other hand, if you have 120 out of 312 cards at your disposal, (ala tracking slugs) even if the dealer's inconsistency does effect one portion of the shoe, there are still plenty of high value cards elsewhere in the shoe that will be untouched. If you have mapped and kept track of the post-shuffle location of those slugs, then you may have another slug you can switch to. Not so with aces.
@^/
Additionally, what if the ace you tracked ends up behind the cut card? You're screwed.
That has happened to me with slugs, as I am sure it has all trackers. However, there is often a second, (albeit less desireable) slug elsewhere in the shoe that a tracker can switch to. (After throwing a $1 metal chip at the head of the ploppy who cut the cards!)
@^D
A less desirable slug is still better than having the ace you had tracked now sitting behind the cut card.
"I seem to recall a rgb study on this. The conclusion was that yes, you are right, but given the huge extra advantage of tracking it does not make a lot of difference.
-I was not aware of this, but cannot say I am totally surprised that someone else thought of it too. At some point, I would like to see the results of that study.
"Finding the ace is enough, trust me. The other cards will take care of themselves."
-Nothing EVER just takes care of itself, trust ME!
@^D
"The ceiling on segment tracking is not much higher than card counting under optimal conditions-3-4%."
-At the risk of sounding conceited, I think I have a better understanding of tracking than most, and I honestly don't see any way that your ceiling claims can be substantiated or verified. -Certainly not to the pinpoint accuracy you have claim. However, I would be interested in seeing the data you used to arrive at that exact figure.
@^!
"With location play you could be looking at ten times that.."-Another pretty fantastic claim. My response would be the same as above. I would like to know how you were able to arrive at this precise of a conclusion. Perhaps it does give a player a bigger advantage, but I have doubts as to it being possible for you to have a means of even roughly (let alone accurately) arriving at a figure like "ten times".
@^!
"...under the hypothetical single perfect riffle scenario presented earlier."
-Frankly, if my tracking career had depended on finding a perfect single riffle somewhere in a real life casino, I'd have moved on a long time ago. Good luck!
On the other hand, with segment tracking, what you just mostly need is a consistent dealer. Agreed, some shuffles are so convoluted they are pretty much impossible to track, but a lot of them (yes, even many of the 2 passers) are trackable if you map and memorize the post shuffle lineup.
@^)
"If a single-riffle game is offered in Ruritania, they will fly out to Ruritania that evening."
-They'd better! They are going to have to travel for long periods of time to God-knows-where to find even just a couple of places with a precise single riffle!
@^D
On the other hand, I can think of several trackable shuffles within 200+ miles of me, and enough of them in Vegas to keep me busy there anytime I go. So I can travel if I want, (and to a place people actually WANT to go to!) or I can play nearer to home. I have those options, whereas you wouldn't.
But be sure to have a real good time in Ruritania!
@^D
"In exchange they work a tenth of the hours of a segment tracker for ten times the profits."
-Another fantastic claim. Again, I fail to see any possibly credible way you could have arrived at this figure accurately. As much as I am deeply into tracking, I will be the very first to admit that it is NOT an exact science, and certainly the same goes for ace locating as well.
-Although some might try to have me believe otherwise.
@^)
Cyclops