A Shuffle Tracking Study: A Special Case of Zone Tracking

A Bit Overstated

You do basically state it, but

Improbable for a person to achieve your numbers in the real world, just like a person cannot play as well as a sim.

blackjack avenger said:

You do basically state it, but

Improbable for a person to achieve your numbers in the real world, just like a person cannot play as well as a sim.

Click to expand...

I was never a fan of hasty generalizations but it all depends on the conditions and on the player's skill level.

I am afraid you are missing the point of running a simulation (a good one that is): to get a good answer for a problem.

Not Missing Anything

Yes, conditions and skill level are very important, you point this out

you presented a case for ST that is improbable in the real world. I did give credit that you mentioned how difficult this was in reality.

Are you stating that what you present is easily attainable for many?

I am just warning against the improbable:joker::whip:

More then likely casinos make money off of pseudo trackers just like they do pseudo counters.:joker::whip:

I think we are in agreement on my major point that this is very difficult to achieve in real world

I do want to add that this was very well written and presented.

ST: Starting with case of extreme clumps

I know nothing of shuffle tracking but let's assume a super shuffle tracker has succeeded in identifying an extremely clumped shoe with (all 2-6 + half 7,8,9) in one clump and all (T-A + half 7,8,9) in a second clump. Below are EVs for each clump for s17, double any 2 cards, NDAS, 1 split allowed any pair, bj pays 3:2, no surrender, full peek.

all (2-6) mixed with half (7,8,9) = [26 cards (1 deck), 156 cards (6 decks)]
single deck CD basic strat: -64.11%, CD best strat: +1.03%
single deck TD basic strat: -63.94
6 deck CD basic strat: -62.06%, CD best strat: +1.31%
6 deck TD basic strat: -62.06%

all T-A mixed with half (7,8,9) = [26 cards (1 deck), 156 cards (6 decks)]
single deck CD basic strat: +10.48%, CD best strat: +18.42% - ins +7.07%
single deck TD basic strat: +10.48% - ins +7.07%
6 deck CD basic strat: +10.05%, CD best strat: +17.62% - ins +6.60%
6 deck TD basic strat: +10.06% - ins +6.60%

Common sense observations:

1) If cards are clumped in +/- slugs using basic strategy or anything close to it would require extreme accuracy in identifying positive card clumps because misidentification could be really costly.

2) If shuffle tracking works then more decks is better. An extremely clumped single deck could pretty much be diluted in one shuffle. The same is true for a double deck if it is shuffled as a whole but if it is broken in half and each half shuffled separately then the extreme clumping might be preserved. It is the forced breaking up of a shoe in order to shuffle that would be most likely to preserve existing clumps.

Thanks for the report, I've been dying to find some good numbers along the lines of exactly what you've shown. I would not call this situation "impossible" as I have actually been able to find multiple tables that follow the ideal situation in the sim. Also, we can't always look at at a simulation literally. Every shuffle is unique, and as Arnold Snyder advises, you can develop your own "recipe" for any given situation, with similar results.

My problem is that I usually pound a few drinks for cover and can still use a level 2 count perfectly, but my shuffle tracking skills quickly dive off the deep end...so I will need to break that habit

fwb said:

Thanks for the report, I've been dying to find some good numbers along the lines of exactly what you've shown. I would not call this situation "impossible" as I have actually been able to find multiple tables that follow the ideal situation in the sim. Also, we can't always look at at a simulation literally. Every shuffle is unique, and as Arnold Snyder advises, you can develop your own "recipe" for any given situation, with similar results.

My problem is that I usually pound a few drinks for cover and can still use a level 2 count perfectly, but my shuffle tracking skills quickly dive off the deep end...so I will need to break that habit

Click to expand...

Speaking of the ST-Guru, he's into Poker now, not ST.

"When Deed Speaks, Words Are Nothing" - (African Proverb)

Tico said:

Speaking of the ST-Guru, he's into Poker now, not ST.

"When Deed Speaks, Words Are Nothing" - (African Proverb)

Click to expand...

Yes because he never made any money Sting

But can we please stick to the subject and not start an irrelevant discussion. If you have questions about the simulation or methodology, or any Sting related question by all means do ask

A logical inquiry?

iCountNTrack said:

Yes because he [Arnold Snyder] never made any money Sting [Shuffle-Tracking].

But can we please stick to the subject and not start an irrelevant discussion. If you have questions about the sime or methodology, or any Sting related question by all means do ask

Click to expand...

Okay---I do have a truly related shuffle-tracking question. Please answer readers this logical inquiry. If the shuffle-tracking Guru can not make money as you stated above, how can the regular shuffle-trackers beat the Guru?

Tico said:

Okay---I do have a truly related shuffle-tracking question. Please answer readers this logical inquiry. If the shuffle-tracking Guru can not make money as you stated above, how can the regular shuffle-trackers beat the Guru?

Click to expand...

Well by no means i would call Snyder a shuffle tracking guru, just because you write a book about something doesnt that necessarily make you a guru. In any case, it is well known that Snyder betting strategies (constant true count in playzone) do not really work especially when your playzone is larger.

In the article, i described one special case of zone tracking and analyzed the method using simulations and shown that it could be very profitable. But i also mention the importance of good conditions and high skill level for the player. This Sting sceanrio is by no means impossible, i have done it many times in the past, and i am sure it could be done at the moment if we hard enough for the opportunities.

Arnold Snyder is a guru? Is this some sort of an oxymoron?

Anyway; the reality is that the excellent lesson that iCountNTrack has presented here just totally BLOWS AWAY regular card counting. It's NOT rocket science. And it's NOT the inexact science that some of us seem to be portraying it as. You do NOT have to be a "genius" to learn it.And most importantly; THE GAMES ARE OUT THERE. All you have to do is give it a chance, and you may be pleasantly surprised at how well it comes together.

Can you provide more detail on the sim? Specifically, do theses results come from tracking only two slugs (only one playzone)? This appears to be the case, so if one were able to track multiple slugs accurately, presumably the results would improve further? You also said that the betting spread was calculated optimally for a 1-15 play-all spread. Was the sim run as play-all, and therefore do the Scores listed include playing both inside and outside the play zone? Does the play outside the play zone rely on standard counting, as usual (incorporating the known info resulting from our tracking, of course)? Does tracking alter the optimal bet spread, since we are altering the true count frequencies, or does it remain the same since the advantage at each TC is about the same?

Thanks very much for the sim and the write-up. Quite interesting, and much appreciated. I always love learning about different types of AP techniques, and this is one where quantitative data is tough to find.

Sucker said:

Anyway; the reality is that the excellent lesson that iCountNTrack has presented here just totally BLOWS AWAY regular card counting. It's NOT rocket science. And it's NOT the inexact science that some of us seem to be portraying it as. You do NOT have to be a "genius" to learn it.And most importantly; THE GAMES ARE OUT THERE. All you have to do is give it a chance, and you may be pleasantly surprised at how well it comes together.

Click to expand...

I second this completely!

Nynefingers said:

Can you provide more detail on the sim? Specifically, do theses results come from tracking only two slugs (only one playzone)? This appears to be the case, so if one were able to track multiple slugs accurately, presumably the results would improve further? You also said that the betting spread was calculated optimally for a 1-15 play-all spread. Was the sim run as play-all, and therefore do the Scores listed include playing both inside and outside the play zone? Does the play outside the play zone rely on standard counting, as usual (incorporating the known info resulting from our tracking, of course)? Does tracking alter the optimal bet spread, since we are altering the true count frequencies, or does it remain the same since the advantage at each TC is about the same?

Thanks very much for the sim and the write-up. Quite interesting, and much appreciated. I always love learning about different types of AP techniques, and this is one where quantitative data is tough to find.

Click to expand...

The shuffle tracking simulation was done for 2 tracked slugs that get shuffled together to make-up 1 playzone in the post-shuffle shoe. As i had mentioned in the article, this case of zone tracking is basically transforming a 6-deck game into a single deck game(in the case where we are tracking 1/2 deck slugs), so in the event when you are tracking more slugs and hence have more than one playzone, you will basically have more 1 deck games which will obviously boost up tremendously your win rate. I will post some quantitative numbers some time later on, however simming real shuffles is a royal pain and i am no QFIT :grin:
Outside of the playzone regular card counting was used where when we are the end of the playzone, the shuffle tracking is shut-off and the initial running count is algebraically subtracted from the running count. In any case the contribution from the card counting outside of the playzone is really small compared to the contribution from shuffle tracking.
To generate the optimum betting spread in the playzone, the true count frequencies of the playzone were used. The spread wasnt really optimized outside of the playzone for the straight counting game.

Excellent. Thanks again for the great article and sims.

tracking sim

The sim was very well done in my oppinion and a big thanks to you. It's funny when you have a max bet out for the slug you cut to the top and vary your bets down from there. I have cleared tables out because of what people have percieved as a bad cut?:laugh:

blackchipjim said:

The sim was very well done in my oppinion and a big thanks to you. It's funny when you have a max bet out for the slug you cut to the top and vary your bets down from there. I have cleared tables out because of what people have percieved as a bad cut?:laugh:

Click to expand...

Actually the diagram shown was for the post-shuffle but pre-cut