Thoughts on Card Clumping in DD Games

Hi, I have been reading for a while and playing as a beginning counter (hi-low) and I have started getting into some shuffle tracking.

I recently spent time watching 4 tables of DD BJ in a Vegas (locals) casino. At this particular casino, all of the DD games had huge amounts of card clumping (it is my opinion that they never change the cards from dawn till dusk).

For example, I saw one game that off the top of a brand new shuffle dealt 6 aces (DD mind you) out of the first 12 cards (3 players plus the dealer) - the other 6 cards were 3,5,2,4,6,7. This example is extreme (and I know is a good sign to run away - no aces left and no tens to match up with even if a player was shuffle tracking).

But I did notice quite a few decks that never showed an ace for about half the shuffles. One DD deck was TC of +15 when the dealer shuffled at .5 decks remaining (I lost quite a bit on this one - ramped my bets at the good count, but got slammed by always having garbage and the dealer never busting).

What is everyone's opinion on playing games with huge amounts of clumping?

Is it worth the time to:
a) try and shuffle track the deck, or
b) give up because the clumps cause the count to have huge amounts of variance that gain almost no advantage in determining deck composition?

Please let me know what you all think - when I first thought about this question it seemed academic, now that I saw these crazy decks, I am scared :)

Thanks.

help you whether or not you are doing any type of shuffle tracking! Just as long as there was no evidence of any attempt to purposely withhold the cards from you. Check to see if the count is hanging on high numbers at the shuffle point. Check for the usual and unusual cheating moves (the number of new casinos and new casino jurisdictions is amazing!). Best would be the Cheating at Blackjack 2000 CD from Dustin D. Marks (click left to the catalog or to the book/software board) IMHO.

Clumps cannot be projected or extrapolated from otherwise (there may be a God, there may be a god too, Lee Harvey Oswald may have acted alone but it is highly improbable IMHO, there may be UFOs [yell "swamp gas" if you see your favorite skeptic being abducted] but there is no valid TARGET system, BORIS is forensic software and NOT predictive software, there are no streaks that can be exploited--well maybe on some CSM games and shuffler settings, and there is no tooth fairy![except during the Stonewall commemorative parades I supose]).

Hi, I have been reading for a while and playing as a beginning counter (hi-low) and I have started getting into some shuffle tracking.

I'd recommend getting in at least 150 hrs of pure counting before basing any bets on tracking. You can dabble in "smart cutting" as a beginner. Try to cut low cards out of play, but count and bet normally.

I recently spent time watching 4 tables of DD BJ in a Vegas (locals) casino. At this particular casino, all of the DD games had huge amounts of card clumping (it is my opinion that they never change the cards from dawn till dusk).

"Clumping" is such a vague concept, you can prove almost anything with it. If you're reading Jerry Patterson or his minions, please stop.

For example, I saw one game that off the top of a brand new shuffle dealt 6 aces (DD mind you) out of the first 12 cards (3 players plus the dealer) - the other 6 cards were 3,5,2,4,6,7. This example is extreme (and I know is a good sign to run away - no aces left and no tens to match up with even if a player was shuffle tracking).

But I did notice quite a few decks that never showed an ace for about half the shuffles. One DD deck was TC of +15 when the dealer shuffled at .5 decks remaining (I lost quite a bit on this one - ramped my bets at the good count, but got slammed by always having garbage and the dealer never busting).

So you saw some nice high and low counts, in an evening of DD observation. Nothing you describe sounds that unusual. There are going to be shoes with many high cards cut off. Not changing the cards from dawn till dusk has little bearing on it.

What is everyone's opinion on playing games with huge amounts of clumping?

Is it worth the time to:
a) try and shuffle track the deck, or

It's always worthwhile to try, but trackable DD games are rare. And if a shuffle is untrackable, you can take it as given that "clumping" however you define it, can not persist from one shoe to the next.

b) give up because the clumps cause the count to have huge amounts of variance that gain almost no advantage in determining deck composition?

Absolutely not. If there IS high volatility in the count, which persists occassionally, due to an inadequate shuffle, that would be a good thing.

Please let me know what you all think - when I first thought about this question it seemed academic, now that I saw these crazy decks, I am scared :)

You should be scared. You aren't experiencing card clumping, you're experiencing a typical blackjack session. :-}

ETF

Thanks ET Fan for the response. Just to clarify:

I have definitely gotten in at least 150 hours of pure counting playing 1-4 (sometimes 1-5) spread ($5 units) on double and single deck games. I have been utilizing more the "smart cutting" type of techniques as opposed to true shuffle tracking: I try to track the "clumps" that consist mostly of tens/faces and aces and cut them into play, while still counting normally and using the count to gauge my betting.

I have read one of Jerry Paterson's books and do not give a lot of weight to it, but I did like the concept of shuffle tracking as an added advantage technique coupled with pure counting.

After the first night of playing and watching other tables, I chalked up my losing session to a bad run of the cards and just another blackjack losing session, but after returning to the same casino 2 more nights and just watching other games and noticing similar crazy patterns occurring very consistently, it felt like something bad was going on.

I understand how high volatility counts benefit the player (afterall, that is the general concept of card counting), but only if the 10/ace rich portion of the deck will be put into play, otherwise the player will bet his max bet and continue to lose.

Is it riskier to play against a deck that has a high probability of having much of the high cards cut out? (I know - conversely the same deck has high probability of having the high cards cut-in and is therefore favorable for the player).

Is it riskier to play against a deck that has a high probability of having much of the high cards cut out?

Without a doubt. It's much safer to play only against decks where the TC never rises aboe 0.5. I just don't know how to make any money on those games. Deuced hard to take the risk out of the gambling profession. ;-)

Shuffle tracking can be a way to lower risk, if that's your goal. Patterson was one of the first to write about ST. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter he sold his soul and his good name to TARGET. If you want to learn about ST, order the book Blackbelt In Blackjack by Arnold Snyder. It has the best intro in print, IMO, and much other wisdom for beginners and advanced players alike.

L:U:C:K
ETF

You can dabble in "smart cutting" as a beginner. Try to cut low cards out of play, but count and bet normally.

Such tactics will in case of success lead to better results with minimum bets but many advantage situation will be missed out. Playing indices will also be misleading. I don't think this is really attractive.
My suggestion is: try to cut the low cards so there will be more detectable adtantage situations.

Francis Salmon

I do not shuffle track (yet), but planning to start. Your method sounds interesting to me but I have some questions:

What would be wrong if you would cut out of play the low cards (for example 5) and start counting the new shoe from +5? You would play the shoe from the beggining with an advantage. If you cut the low cards to the top, you would have to wait (say one deck), playing with a disadvantage before you rise your bets. Why you prefer to do it this way?

Intuitively, I can see that your method could be more accurate, since you will not make estimations of the count at the beggining. It could also be easier for a common player to perform, since even if you tracked wrong, you could find it out when the shoe starts without risking big bets on the top.

But you would miss advantageous sitiuations from the top, wouldn't you? If you cut the low cards out of play, you will have a full shoe loaded with big cards, allowing you to bet big on the top.

These are just my thoughts-questions. I would really like to hear your thoughts, since I know you are a pro with much more experience than me!

What would be wrong if you would cut out of play the low cards (for example 5) and start counting the new shoe from +5?

There is nothing wrong with this except that you have to take contamination into account:So an eventual slug of +5 that you have followed through the shuffle will on average result in a segment of +4. If you are capable of locating it with an error margin of less than 30% this is fine, otherwise it will lead to desaster.
But ET Fan recommanded to cut the low cards out of play without accounting for it which is an entirely different story.

For beginners it's certainly best to do it the safe way as I advocated but once you feel at ease with tracking you can use more risky methods if the situation calls for it.

Francis Salmon

I even printed them out and they are part of my library.They are highly scientific and instructive.
As to my own tracking abilities,I made home tests and even shuffling myself I had only about 70% success.
Very often I play heads up with deep penetration and no other table available.
With a 30% error quota it doesn't seem advisable to try to cut low cards out of play.Cutting high cards to the top doesn't convince me either because even if I got it right I would have highly negative situations throughout the rest of the shoe.
Cutting low cards to the top is a safe way of tracking but of course one has to wait until the expected slug is over (number of cards not count!)and only then attack and use playing departures.
Another argument for this method, you gave yourself:tracking cover!

Francis Salmon

If you cut low cards to the top, on average you will cut high cards out of play. "Safe" is not the word that comes to mind.

If you have a long segment of low cards, you can cut in the middle to force some to the top. But get as many as you can out of the picture. The indexes will be conservative -- not a problem.

ETF

was Bob Fisher's argument.

The NRS formula is the top means of evaluating equivalent true count if your tracking strategy is based upon tracking the actual slugs, of variable size, through fixed size shoe segments.

The alternative is to track segments equal to the grab size and play the subdecks composed of the grab size segments, and where the sum of the grab sizes is the offset in running count for playing the subdecks the grab size sections combine to form. That is my BJT (search the way back search window for the link Zombie put up here) approach.

Cover:

It takes awhile for the sky to clock your play to determine any type of shuffle tracking, but the biggest tipoff is this so-called safe play during the first shoe or two and then making your ST departures. All of this posting about looking like JUST a normal counter is bizzare to me. The is why I advised "alienated" to go with some variation of his tracking without tracking a prior shoe idea. Think of his scheme as a low correlation approach, as a playing recomendation, but adding tremendous cover if tapes of his playing are being reviewed. There is much benefit to a player always jumping his bets and playing about, rather than leaving this red flag signal of having a waiting shoe or two. A ploppie might wait to practice his ....whatever, but a long term record of playing, and success in actually getting the aces and tens with a high bet out is going to bring suspicion. Quit waving this tell-tale "flag" and you will probably extend by 5 to 1 the amount of time for even the best observer to have any type of idea about your possibly using ST.

All the publications about tracking advocate cutting high cards to the top and the Casinos have developed a real phobia about this.
For the eye it's very easy to detect a good tracker: They just check whether their is a lot of paint coming during big plays from the top.
They will miss out the bad trackers though! :)
Many casinos won't take measures against traditional counters because they think that their profit potential is too limited to pose a threat.

Francis Salmon