continuous shuffle and/or online play

[daveh0]

It is starting to seem to me that if you are not counting, your best shot is playing in a game where the cards played in previous hands do not have any effect on your current hand. I'm thinking this because I feel like BS is a very bad way to play in extremely high or extremely low counts. At least in a continuous-shuffle game, at a table with 7 players, using BS in combination with some composition-sensitive strategies (10-2 vs. 4, 10-6 vs 10, 10-3 vs 2, etc.) would be a bit more accurate than a shoe-dealt game.

For example:

You are at 3rd base. The 6 players to your right all have 10-10 and stayed. You have 10-2 and the dealer is showing a 4. Due to there being more 10s on the board than babies, the correct move is to hit.

Now in a shoe-dealt game where the count was extremely, extremely high, even though all those 10s are being shown on the board for that particular hand, hitting still might not be the best thing to do. But since you have no idea what the count is, you are kind of being tricked into hitting.

Take the same board composition in a continuous shuffle game. Since the count is neutral at the beginning of EVERY hand, you can be sure that all those 10s put the count to negative and that hitting is the right thing to do.

Is there any legitimacy to what I'm saying? If you are mainly a BS player and throw in some decision-making based on board composition, are your odds of winning greatest at a continuous shuffle table?

 

[shadroch]

The biggest problem with playing with a CSM is that you end up playing
more hands an hour.As BS is a negative expectation game,the more hands you play,the more you lose.Even if its only an extra three or four hands an hour,it adds up over a long weekend.

 

[daveh0]

The biggest problem with playing with a CSM is that you end up playing
more hands an hour.

I never even considered that. Makes sense.
Hypothetically, if you were able to play the same number of hands per hour as in a shoe-dealt game, does my theory hold any water?

 

[shadroch]

I'm not a mathlete,but it might to have some merit.CSMs aren't always neutral though. Sometimes they go two or three rounds before depositing the cards back in.
Your BS that calls for you to hit a 10/2 against a dealers 4.Where is this from?

 

[daveh0]

Your BS that calls for you to hit a 10/2 against a dealers 4.Where is this from?

Renzy's book. If there are more 10 on the board than babies, it says to hit.

 

[Kasi]

Is there any legitimacy to what I'm saying? If you are mainly a BS player and throw in some decision-making based on board composition, are your odds of winning greatest at a continuous shuffle table?

Possibly it might help just a tad. You'd have to know the number of decks in the CSM for some of the comp-dependent plays - not that many with 6-8 decks anyway.

I wouldn't worry about BS in all counts because that's what it's for - it'll average out.

I think CSM's might have a lower HA than a cut-card shoe game?

If exact same game with either CSM or a shoe, at some number of players, like 7 at a CSM, vs 1 or 2 at the shoe, it's possible you may get more hands in at the shoe. Maybe lol. If different games, calculate your hourly EV accordingly. Different min bets could swing the balance of which to play too.

 

[tedloc]

Dave

This question has come up before and since you are a Renzy fan, let me tell you what he says.
Whenever the dealer shuffles, the odds are 101/100 in favor of the house. Pretty much an even money bet. So if you are not a card counter and have no idea as to the cards left in the deck, this is the one time, you know you have a close to 'even money' bet. So if you are not a card counter, it makes sense to play in a game, where the cards are continuously shuffled. Since you can't be sure as to when the previous hand gets put back into the deck, it might be advantagous to raise you bet if a lot of low cards come out in the hand you are playing.

 

[GeorgeD]

This question has come up before and since you are a Renzy fan, let me tell you what he says.
Whenever the dealer shuffles, the odds are 101/100 in favor of the house. Pretty much an even money bet. So if you are not a card counter and have no idea as to the cards left in the deck, this is the one time, you know you have a close to 'even money' bet. So if you are not a card counter, it makes sense to play in a game, where the cards are continuously shuffled. Since you can't be sure as to when the previous hand gets put back into the deck, it might be advantagous to raise you bet if a lot of low cards come out in the hand you are playing.

That makes sense, but with a CSM with th ecounts staying more neutral, you would never be able to even unknowingly take advantage of the high counts. Of course you would also be less likely to get losses from high counts.

So I'm thinking the CSM might reduce your varience, but wouldn't the HA be about equal? In shuffled games wouldn't the high counts balance the low counts at least in the long run making the average count about neutral? Isn't that why to need bet spreads to win money?

 

[sagefr0g]

This question has come up before and since you are a Renzy fan, let me tell you what he says.
Whenever the dealer shuffles, the odds are 101/100 in favor of the house. Pretty much an even money bet. So if you are not a card counter and have no idea as to the cards left in the deck, this is the one time, you know you have a close to 'even money' bet. So if you are not a card counter, it makes sense to play in a game, where the cards are continuously shuffled. Since you can't be sure as to when the previous hand gets put back into the deck, it might be advantagous to raise you bet if a lot of low cards come out in the hand you are playing.

also tedloc i think your aware that many joints allow the discards to build up a bit (circa half to three quarters deck) before feeding the machine. so say in these cases one was wonging the table and enough low cards had come out to yeild a tc circa plus one. whay not take a shot at it? :cool2: