Counting or basic strategy for recreational players ?

[StudiodeKadent]

You are quite right - it cuts both ways. So it's a toss up between a CSM with a marginal improvement over HE but much lower variance against it, or a shoe with greater variance both ways and less hands per hour being served up.

Here's the link to the essay I wrote. I've noticed a typo or two and I never got around to doing the re-write.

http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12360&highlight=CSM

I hope I've expressed myself clearly.

Regards,

Thank you very much for linking me to that essay. I do appreciate it.

I can't really fault your argument. You are completely correct: CSM's keep the composition of the shoe nearly constant and thus they lower variance. This means the duration of "lucky streaks" and "unlucky streaks" are both significantly shortened (on average).

This implies net wins and net losses will be more modest in nature.

But I do respectfully disagree, to some extent, over whether or not this implies a Basic Strategy player should take a shoe over a CSM.

Your argument (please tell me if I have misinterpreted you) focusses on the possibility of a player-favoring shoe, and this giving a lot of pleasure to the players. This is true, but so is the reverse. A catastrophically bad shoe would cause a lot of displeasure to the player.

So the question ultimately comes down to one of utility/pleasure. We know that over the long run, both shoe and CSM BJ are losing games for the basic strategy player. I would argue that the peaks of a big win are (at least in the case of my personal risk-pleasure profile) balanced out by the troughs of being wiped out.

For a player that loves winning $x yet isn't particularly fazed by losing $x, higher variance would probably bring in more utility over time. On the other hand, players with different risk-utility profiles may get different amounts of pleasure from variance.

So in short, I think your variance argument is inconclusive.

The argument you make about speed of games is, however, valid. Faster games = faster loss of money overall = less time at table getting free drinks and racking up comp points (however, the speed at which the casino gives you comp points... if its faster for the CSM-dealt game than the shoe-dealt game, that would nullify any effect). However, there are mixed reports on the actual speed with which CSMs increase the game pace (including whether or not they do significantly increase the game pace (plus there is also the question of whether or not they significantly increase the pace beyond automatic shuffling machines etc)).

Still, thanks for the article. I hope my comments are helpful in any future re-write of the article you might plan on doing.

 

[UK-21]

Thanks. Another point I could make is that, due to the variable results of each shuffle, BJ is the only game in the casino that has the potential for players who are not adopting any AP strategies to get an edge over the house. CSMs negate that possibility.

For those non-advantage players who have made the effort to learn BS, and know that they are still playing at a disadvantage, the effect of a swing in favour of the house (rather than the player) will on average mean that they will lose whatever money they have set aside to play in less time - assuming they've set themselves a loss limit. If they are just simply playing for a period of time then, yes, they will lose more.

Perhaps the answer is:

If playing BS with a loss limit in mind = shoe game.

If playing for a set period of time = CSM.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

Thanks. Another point I could make is that, due to the variable results of each shuffle, BJ is the only game in the casino that has the potential for players who are not adopting any AP strategies to get an edge over the house. CSMs negate that possibility.

This is true. Generally speaking, the casino I gamble most at uses the 1-deck discard tray + CSM method, which basically makes it a shoe with 1 deck penetration. This casino also has a house edge of 0.08% so the low edge with slight penetration would probably mean at least some rounds might have an advantage in favor of the player. I admit this effect would be very small however.

Perhaps the answer is:

If playing BS with a loss limit in mind = shoe game.

If playing for a set period of time = CSM.

I'd probably argue that it depends on each player's risk profile. If a player is going to play "just one session" then I'd probably argue they take a shoe game simply because the chance of a really good session is there, wheras CSM games are much less extreme. Of course, many other factors can come into play: risk profile, preference for lots of play and comp whoring, etc.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

This is true. Generally speaking, the casino I gamble most at uses the 1-deck discard tray + CSM method, which basically makes it a shoe with 1 deck penetration. This casino also has a house edge of 0.08% so the low edge with slight penetration would probably mean at least some rounds might have an advantage in favor of the player. I admit this effect would be very small however.



I'd probably argue that it depends on each player's risk profile. If a player is going to play "just one session" then I'd probably argue they take a shoe game simply because the chance of a really good session is there, wheras CSM games are much less extreme. Of course, many other factors can come into play: risk profile, preference for lots of play and comp whoring, etc.

Just because CSMs are common where you live, doesn't mean you should advise players here to patronize those monstrosities.

If you care about the game at all, you would not advise people to play against them, despite a negligible decrease in house edge (which again is offset by more hands per hour. How could it not be? Have you seen how long it takes most casinos to shuffle? I find it implausible that a CSM could possibly not increase hands per hour.)

 

[StudiodeKadent]

How could it not be? Have you seen how long it takes most casinos to shuffle? I find it implausible that a CSM could possibly not increase hands per hour.

IIRC most casinos that deal blackjack from a shoe use Automatic Shuffle Machines to shuffle their shoes. This would cut down shuffle time significantly. Additionally, and I am not sure if casino regulations permit this, but the casino could keep two shoes on each table, and have a 'rotating shoe' situation where one shoe is dealt and the other shoe is shuffled. This would mean shuffle time is significantly lowered as well. Again, this might actually be illegal under current casino regulations, but if it is not, it is one possible way to lower shuffle times without using CSMs.

And again, if playing at a CSM table gets the player comped at a faster rate than playing at a shoe table ( holding all other factors equal ), the only things that an increase in game speed would diminish are 1) amount of free drinks the player gets at the table, and 2) amount of time spent at the table itself, which would only really damage a player whose amount of entertainment was a function of time at the table (and NOT number of rounds played).

Yes, this is subjective utility analysis. It is not objective expected loss analysis. However, if the general public made judgements about gambling on the basis of objective expected loss alone, they would not gamble.

I am not making a blanket recommendation in favor of CSM's. I am simply saying that some players may derive more pleasure from a CSM dealt game than a shoe game, ceteris paribus.

 

[Blue Efficacy]

IIRC most casinos that deal blackjack from a shoe use Automatic Shuffle Machines to shuffle their shoes. This would cut down shuffle time significantly. Additionally, and I am not sure if casino regulations permit this, but the casino could keep two shoes on each table, and have a 'rotating shoe' situation where one shoe is dealt and the other shoe is shuffled. This would mean shuffle time is significantly lowered as well. Again, this might actually be illegal under current casino regulations, but if it is not, it is one possible way to lower shuffle times without using CSMs.

And again, if playing at a CSM table gets the player comped at a faster rate than playing at a shoe table ( holding all other factors equal ), the only things that an increase in game speed would diminish are 1) amount of free drinks the player gets at the table, and 2) amount of time spent at the table itself, which would only really damage a player whose amount of entertainment was a function of time at the table (and NOT number of rounds played).

Yes, this is subjective utility analysis. It is not objective expected loss analysis. However, if the general public made judgements about gambling on the basis of objective expected loss alone, they would not gamble.

I am not making a blanket recommendation in favor of CSM's. I am simply saying that some players may derive more pleasure from a CSM dealt game than a shoe game, ceteris paribus.

My recent expereiences, both in LV and my local gambling market, I have seen less than half of the tables I played at using ASMs. I saw a lot of hand shuffling in Vegas.

 

[StudiodeKadent]

My recent expereiences, both in LV and my local gambling market, I have seen less than half of the tables I played at using ASMs. I saw a lot of hand shuffling in Vegas.

Thanks for the clarifiction. I must say I am rather surprised about hand shuffling in Vegas. Either ASM's are extremely expensive or the shuffle time doesn't cost the casino very much at all (which would logically imply that shuffle time doesn't benefit the player very much either).

Still, thank you for informing me. It's appreciated.

 

[Randyk47]

I guess it depends on where you gamble in Vegas but I saw very little hand shuffling for double deck games a couple of weeks ago. They were hand shuffling single deck but that goes pretty fast and, of course, shoe games were all hand shuffled.

 

[jozef88]

my advice is: get a copy of Comp City!!