Counting and card clumping?

[Jay]

Hello,

I am a new counter and I was wondering if the card clumping "theory" for multiple-deck games actually affects the counter. I can see that if the low cards are clumped that a counter would bet more due to a high count, only to lose because more low cards are coming out and now high cards. Excuse my ignorance Any responses appreciated!

 

[The Mayor]

Answer

>I am a new counter and I was wondering if the card clumping "theory" for multiple-deck games actually affects the counter.

No, it does not. That's one weed you've got to pull.

Welcome to the board,

--Mayor

 

[Rockky]

Clumping

I am curious why you said you "it does not". If the high cards are clumped there would be a high count prior to the clump that the counter would keep betting high on low cards. Once the clump appear both the counter and the dealer would be getting 20s, sort off. This should reduce the advantage for the counter.

 

[The Mayor]

Answer

If you are either card counting, tracking ace slugs, or shuffle tracking, then you may know something about the deck that tells you when you have an advantage. In any other context, "clumping" is total nonsense.

I refer you to the board policy on discussing mythology on these pages. If you have any further questions about clumping, please direct them to another board.

Thanks.

 

[zengrifter]

"Clumps" vs. "Segments"

We use the term "segments" to distinguish between scientific-based shuffle tracking and Ace sequencing, and the non-scientific concept of "Clumping." Notwithstanding, segments are sometimes reffered to as "clumps" by legitimate counters/trackers, hence the confusion. zg

 

[Jay]

Thanks!

Thank you for all your responses! Mayor, this site is a great learning tool, I appreciate it!

 

[Automatic Monkey]

How about discard order?

Discard order is a legit advantage if you can get it to survive the shuffle in some form. Could this be considered a legit form of "clumping" theory but on a primitive-cell level?

 

[ganosuke]

hit the nail...

that's what I am thinking of. I see that the dealer picks up the busted hands first, which are typically the low cards, and the hard hands last, which are mostly the high cards, so there are now two "clumps" for lack of a better term. Now we have the low cards together and the high cards together. When the dealer picks up all the decks to reshuffle for a new shoe, do they shuffle well enough to alleviate these clumps of low and high cards. And if they don't, is there any proof that this really hurts us the counter? I am on the fence with this one. Since I am so new to counting and the game, (3 months) I don't have a grasp of weeding out the correct strategies from the incorrect "theories". Thank you all for responding, this is a very interesting subject to me.

 

[The Mayor]

see #2 in posting guidelines

If someone really wants to study "clumping," they should just study shuffle tracking instead. These are not the same things. People who believe in clumping don't seem to believe the mountain of evidence that such a phenomenon does not exist. Their argument is usually that "computer simulations can't model real world casino experience." I don't want to get into that. I don't want it on my board.

Here is one of the conditions stated under the posting guidelines for this site:

2. Mythology and pseudo-science cannot be promoted or encouraged.

I am not going to defend this policy or argue any more against those who think clumping works. It is the policy of this site to not allow any discussion based on mythological thinking, and yes, I get to decide what is (or is not) mythology. Clumping is mythology.

I am sure (absolutely and positively sure) that (Dead link: http://www.johnpatrick.com) _www.johnpatrick.com_ would welcome such a topic. Likewise, you can try the topic on www.bj21.com on the free pages, or on the beginner page at www.rge21.com. You may get more tolerance for this topic at those sites.

--Mayor

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Knowing the difference

I agree with you Mayor that pseudoscience and false mathematical reasoning shouldn't be encouraged. But these are newbies who have no way of knowing the difference. Being you're a professor who undoubtedly deals with students who have a tiny fraction of your innate ability and training I'm sure you're familiar with how far you have to break a problem down in order to get the message across. Perhaps an explanation of exactly why these beliefs are fallacies would be in order, and prevent these issues from being revisited. Or maybe you could write a roundup of the common fallacies debunked, post them here and refer offenders to the relevant section.

 

[The Mayor]

Well said

I completely agree with you, the new players who have these false ideas need to be encouraged to find out the truth, not insulted for their wondering about these ideas. I don't mind questions that ask why these systems are wrong, that is not what #2 says. What I dislike are posts that encourage or advocate this type of thinking, or in any way treat the subject as one that can lead towards an advantage.

As to why clumping is wrong, well, the real question is, what does "clumping" mean in the first place? I believe it means that in the play of the hand, certain cards tend to be grouped an then collected together, then those same cards somehow end up close to each other through the shuffle, and then the fact that they are close can be taken advantage of the next time through the shoe.

In fact, this is exactly how ace tracking/sequencing works. But in this case, you are using all your power to try and find and steer 1 or 2 aces through a shoe/shuffle, and even in the best conditions, this is a lot of work with little hope for a sustained pay-off.

Clumping seems to imply that you don't really need to track, just watch for some low cards to come out, as in "low follows low". This is faulty logic. A Two-pass riffle and restack (very rare) will separate most cards that were next to each other by at about 3 cards. But there are a number of breaks (each time the cards are cut) so about 1 in 7 adjacent cards will end up really far apart in a 2-pass R&R. And if you throw in a strip -- well, just forget it. If the individual deck portions are shuffled before the restack (very common) then only Shuffle Tracking gives an edge here, nothing else can be said about the relative order of the cards.

A step-latter shuffle (the most common) will separate cards anywhere from 1 to 310 places apart.

And so on.

Shuffle tracking works, but it is a complex and difficult subject. Clumping is pseudoscience, and will not give the player an edge.

Hope this helps.

By the way, in my book, I have about 10 small chapters debunking various blackjack mythologies.

--Mayor

 

[Jay]

Thanks Mayor

Yeah be easy on me guys! I hope you understand that I am in no way advocating that there even is such a thing as clumping. I am just very new to the game and have to ask questions about topics that are hard to find info on. This board is fantastic for just that purpose. I am sure that at one point when we were all new to the game, these questions came across our minds. And please, Mayor, don't think that I am deliberately trying to go against the rules with this post. I had no idea until now that "clumping" was even mythology.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[gui]

pertinent article

I was once fascinated by the phenomena of clumping.
In a crowded table BJ are stacked first; then busted hands(T-smallcard-T) etc...

Fortunately i've made simulations and found ASHES!

www.bjmath.com (Archive copy) Use the engine on this site and find the article:

In search of clumping... ,Abdul Jalib

ASHES !

 

[The Mayor]

Here is a link and a quote

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/conseq/clumping.htm (Archive copy)

From the article...

... the effects are very small, only about as large as removing
a single card from a six deck shoe, which any card counter knows
is worth very little.

... the clumping effect can be observed, but it's miniscule in size, much
smaller than the effects I revealed above.

The simulations I've done here, and back in 1990, should have been
done by the clumpers long ago, long before they ever dreamed of trying
to exploit clumps in the casinos, long before they ever dreamed to
declare that clumping was real and not a perceptual artifact.  By not
doing their homework, they got things pretty much exactly backwards,
and vastly overestimated the strengths of the effects and the impact
of casino shuffles on normal players and counters.

 

[DoubleO/Soul]

Non Random Shuffle

I recently purchased the Ace Tracking book I first read about on this board.

I do agree that it is a most difficult thing to master.

What struck me though, was in the book the words "non-random shuffle" appear over and over and seem to be the basis for being able to track aces.

My question is, are there any other advantages available to players for tracking segments in the non ramdom shuffle. I have not read the shuffle tracking books.

Specifically, I play mainly DD hand shuffled games. Any advice on other books that explain any advantage gained from exploiting non random shuffles?

THANK YOU!

 

[Sohrab]

A suggestion

Maybe on the left side of the page in those links could be one called "blackjack myths and why they're wrong" or something and you could post simple explanations of why these things are wrong. Then when someone new comes and asks we could all say "look over there".

 

[zengrifter]

The Card Clumping Myth by Bryce Carlson

The Card Clumping Myth by Bryce Carlson
...here - http://webhome.idirect.com/~blakjack/crdclump.htm