I agree that this would be the correct way to do it, however I still think the information would be practically worthless. Since the Cut-offs are being broke into three piles, you need to ASSUME an average count for the bottom plug. I don't know off the top of my head the probability of the average count actually being the correct count for the small plug in question, but from experience I would say not great. Then once again you need to assume the count of the other half deck that this plug is mixing with in the first shuffle. This has even less of a chance of being accurate.Ferretnparrot said:Take note that you know the TC of the entire cuttoof from the previous shoe, and even though it is broken into three segments pending the plugs, the tc stil apllies to each fo those segments, the one placed on the bottom of the shoe will become the top of the shoe mixed with cards with an average tc that is figurable by taking not of the pentration from the previous shoe.
I guess what I'm getting at is that all these assumptions and averages are going to end up increasing your variance and risk tremendously if you place a large bet into what you think to be a negative playing area.
The only thing that I would do in this scenario is to either cut this section of interst to the front of the shoe if I came to the conclusion that it was a +ve section (to help build a +ve count), or cut this section to an area right before the cut card if I thought it was a negative slug, and that way counting the first 4.5/8 decks (assuming 6.5/8 pen) would help verify the count of the tracked slug.