Shuffle Tracking Question for the experts...

[Sucker]

If i have a 1 deck packet with 12 extra high cards, when cutting to it if i cut one card out i have a 12/52 (3/13) chance of it being one of my extra high cards. If the opposite is true and i have 12 extra low cards in a deck, what i really have is a 5 deck playzone with 12 extra high cards. So if i mistakenly cut one card out of my playzone i have a 12/260 (3/65) chance that it's one of my extra high cards.

Actually, you have proven my point.
A margin of error of one card out of a 1 deck packet is EXACTLY equal to a margin of error of 5 cards out of a 5 deck packet. No WONDER your apples to oranges comparison gives an error rate of exactly five times as much. Think about it!

I stand by my statement: "Errors cutting bad cards out of play are EXACTLY as costly as those cutting good cards in".

One of the most widely overlooked aspects of tracking by those who write about it or attempt it is the difference the direction of the cutting error makes.

This is disingenuous doublespeak. I have NEVER seen a comprehensive essay on shuffle tracking which did NOT include the placement of the cut card as a CORNERSTONE of the system. That would be like someone writing a book on card counting and neglecting to include the part about raising your bet when you have the advantage.

This thread is becoming tiresome for me; reminds me of a couple of recent threads on the True Count Theorem in which some people just could not grasp it no matter HOW much the forum members explained it.

 

[zengrifter]

This is disingenuous doublespeak. I have NEVER seen a comprehensive essay on shuffle tracking which did NOT include the placement of the cut card as a CORNERSTONE of the system. That would be like someone writing a book on card counting and neglecting to include the part about raising your bet when you have the advantage.

RJT is a student of Mike Aponte. Maybe Aponte left something out of his seminar? zg

 

[RJT]

RJT is a student of Mike Aponte. Maybe Aponte left something out of his seminar? zg

Afraid not - i've had lengthy dicussions with Mike but never been in any training session with him and only the most surface level on this topic. To my knowledge - and take into account it's now been several years since i've had any contact with Mike or indeed even looked at his commercial ventures - i don't think he ever ran seminars on ST anyway.

RJT.

 

[RJT]

Actually, you have proven my point.
A margin of error of one card out of a 1 deck packet is EXACTLY equal to a margin of error of 5 cards out of a 5 deck packet. No WONDER your apples to oranges comparison gives an error rate of exactly five times as much. Think about it!

I stand by my statement: "Errors cutting bad cards out of play are EXACTLY as costly as those cutting good cards in".

That's right, i've proven exactly what you've said which i acknowledged at the end of the post, while at the same time dismissing all of it for its lack of practical application. What i was trying to highlight is that you should always be ensuring that if you are going to make a mistake, obviously you should be doing so in the least damaging direction, which is what my "apples to oranges" comparison took account of. While the high cards and low cards behave in the same manner, the effect when you make errors and then bet into them forces you to treat them differently (see above, errors cutting cards into low card packet making 0 difference compared with big bets - and greater volume overall - into disadvantage with error on the high cards). Or do you not agree that most low card packets being smaller in size than the cutoffs provides an inherient advantage that playing high cards doesn't provide? Of course by this i mean 'advantage' as in ease of play rather than edge over the house and I am assuming a certain weakness of shuffle here, but i don't feel that's an unfair assumption.

This is disingenuous doublespeak. I have NEVER seen a comprehensive essay on shuffle tracking which did NOT include the placement of the cut card as a CORNERSTONE of the system. That would be like someone writing a book on card counting and neglecting to include the part about raising your bet when you have the advantage.

This thread is becoming tiresome for me; reminds me of a couple of recent threads on the True Count Theorem in which some people just could not grasp it no matter HOW much the forum members explained it.

I've never read a single piece of well circulate material that given nearly the coverage to the difference between cutting cards in and out of different packets that it requires. Personally as a tracker, i consider that a HUGE ommision. Yes most of them discuss the necessary AVERAGE accuracy, but an average is a massively misleading figure when it's weighted so heavily. For me - and perhaps this is something only a tracker would see relevance in - when errors are so important, knowing that making a 5 card error on one side is only as significant as a one card error on the other would seem to carry value.

BTW, i'd hoped to keep our dialoge to a more civil level than words like "disingenuous" and "tiresome". It's up to you though.

RJT.

 

[zengrifter]

Afraid not - i've had lengthy dicussions with Mike but never been in any training session with him and only the most surface level on this topic. To my knowledge - and take into account it's now been several years since i've had any contact with Mike or indeed even looked at his commercial ventures - i don't think he ever ran seminars on ST anyway.

Someone just told me that wanted to take his ST.
BUT MIT manager JonnyC says that MIT NEVER made money with ST and they dropped it. zg

 

[RJT]

Someone just told me that wanted to take his ST.

What? If you're saying you know someone who agreed to take a seminar he ran on ST, it's news to me.

BUT MIT manager JonnyC says that MIT NEVER made money with ST and they dropped it. zg

It depends which of the many factions amongst the MIT groups you talk to. I've had conversations with several. The most famous one (al la BDTH) didn't use tracking as far as i'm aware due to the failure of the previous SI venture when using the advanced techniques. I know Semyon would tell a different story of the success of the more advanced games. Where the truth lies is not something anyone who wasn't there at the time is likely to know and even those that were there honestly seem to have ended up with distorted memories due to inherient personal biases.

RJT.

 

[zengrifter]

I know Semyon would tell a different story of the success of the more advanced games.

But Semyon was using that 10-card steering method, as opposed to ST, right? zg

 

[RJT]

But Semyon was using that 10-card steering method, as opposed to ST, right? zg

No Semyon used back card play, sequencing and ST alongside a sizable counting team. As far as i'm aware - and i'd emphasize again that all my knowledge on this is second hand, i wasn't involved with any of it - SI also applied all of these techniques. From what i know, the failure of SI came after some substantial takes using these techniques. Some players believe it was the techniques required too high a level of accuracy to be employed on a large scale feeling that the previous successes were just blind luck and others feel it wasn't a failure, simply variance. But i'm really talking far over my head here so everything i've said on MIT in this thread should be taken with a heft mound of salt.

RJT.

 

[Traveller]

+5 Count

Hello everyone! I'm back again pleading for help!!!

I am trying to get to grips with shuffle tracking, and decided it was much easier to "cut bad cards out of play" than to "cut good cards into play"..

I will try to explain what I want to do, and wondered if someone could just confirm that my thinking and strategy is correct..

At the moment I am playing a 6 deck shoe. The casino knows I am a counter and they are cutting the shoe in half (50% pen). Lets say I am counting the cards on a new shoe, and after the first deck has been dealt the RC is +5. Obviously during the shuffle these cards will get riffled with another random deck. My question is, if after the shuffle I cut the shoe in the such a way as to move the original first deck with a RC of +5 (which is now randomly shuffled with another deck) to somewhere behind the cut card, is it safe to start my RC of the new shoe at +5? Am I right in saying that if the low card slug of 52 cards plus the 52 random cards that were shuffled with it are cut SOMEWHERE behind the cut card, then it really does not have to be a precise cut as long as the cards are somewhere in the first three decks of the shoe?

I seems to me, if this were correct, that in the situation of a casino half-cutting a 6 deck shoe (50% penetration), the shuffle tracker does not need need to be so accurate when cutting low cards out of play, as long as they are placed behind the cut card and they will not be dealt in the game...

One other question... If I know for sure that with a particular shuffle routine I can cut the first deck played behind the cut card, is it correct to remember the PEAK count (the highest count) of the first deck played, then cut this deck to the back of the shoe after the shuffle (obviously mixed throughly with other random cards), and to start the RC at the PEAK (the highest RC in the first deck dealt of the shoe)...

Sorry if I explained things a bit badly... it is not easy to put some of my thoughts on paper!!

Thanks in advance guys,,

Spin.

Hi Spin Dizzy, you are wrong in your assumptions.

If you have a +5 count after one deck then based on random distribution of the remaining 5 decks each one will be -1. When the cards get shuffled, even if you can unequivocally say that you tracked the complete +5 deck it will be diluted by -1, so it will now be +4 over 2 decks. Add to this the extra deck that you will now cut behind the cut card (3/6) which will also be -1 and you have cut out +3 in total.

This means that you would start the next shoe with a running three with 3 decks dealt which gives you a true +1 count per deck. If you are playing a game with a 0.5% disadvantage then you can see that you are break even at best off the top. (in this scenario).

You could bet a little bigger knowing you are break even, just for cover. But i would not go mad. If the count then goes up you can press you bets and reduce if it goes down.

As you are already being watched as stated earlier, it might be better to try to cut the high cards to the top rather than the low ones to the bottom, but as also stated you need to be damn accurate and could cause damage if you are not. If you are accurate and the shuffle is not too complicated then this will bring you more betting opportunities where you can go at it from the top of the shoe rather than have to count and add to the starting point of +3.

Good luck. If you need any other info PM me as i will not frequently troll the boards looking for Q's.

T.

 

[tthree]

Hi Spin Dizzy, you are wrong in your assumptions.

If you have a +5 count after one deck then based on random distribution of the remaining 5 decks each one will be -1. When the cards get shuffled, even if you can unequivocally say that you tracked the complete +5 deck it will be diluted by -1, so it will now be +4 over 2 decks. Add to this the extra deck that you will now cut behind the cut card (3/6) which will also be -1 and you have cut out +3 in total.

This means that you would start the next shoe with a running three with 3 decks dealt which gives you a true +1 count per deck. If you are playing a game with a 0.5% disadvantage then you can see that you are break even at best off the top. (in this scenario).

You could bet a little bigger knowing you are break even, just for cover. But i would not go mad. If the count then goes up you can press you bets and reduce if it goes down.

As you are already being watched as stated earlier, it might be better to try to cut the high cards to the top rather than the low ones to the bottom, but as also stated you need to be damn accurate and could cause damage if you are not. If you are accurate and the shuffle is not too complicated then this will bring you more betting opportunities where you can go at it from the top of the shoe rather than have to count and add to the starting point of +3.

Good luck. If you need any other info PM me as i will not frequently troll the boards looking for Q's.

T.

I dont know about ST but I was following your logic and I think you overlooked 1 factor. I believe he is being half shoed. The 1 deck slug cut out behind the shuffle card should be viewed as 1 deck already in the discard tray. So you start of with RC +5 with 5 decks remaining of the six deck shoe. This gives you the same starting value of TC +1 but the effect of play as you count into the shoe will be more accurate. You would always add one deck to your estimate of cards played in the discard tray.

It is also a lot simpler to figure your starting point. If you were correct in your assumption you cut that full one deck slug out of play this approach would always be 100% accurate. By extension starting with an RC +3 has a minor flaw. Again I know nothing about ST but I believe my logic is flawless. Maybe I didnt understand the how you intended to play into the shoe.

 

[Traveller]

I dont know about ST but I was following your logic and I think you overlooked 1 factor. I believe he is being half shoed. The 1 deck slug cut out behind the shuffle card should be viewed as 1 deck already in the discard tray. So you start of with RC +5 with 5 decks remaining of the six deck shoe. This gives you the same starting value of TC +1 but the effect of play as you count into the shoe will be more accurate. You would always add one deck to your estimate of cards played in the discard tray.

It is also a lot simpler to figure your starting point. If you were correct in your assumption you cut that full one deck slug out of play this approach would always be 100% accurate. By extension starting with an RC +3 has a minor flaw. Again I know nothing about ST but I believe my logic is flawless. Maybe I didnt understand the how you intended to play into the shoe.

You say you don't know about shuffle tracking then say you logic is flawless. Come again. If he is being half shoe'd, then they are cutting off three from six. His count of +5 over one deck gets diluted as it is shuffled to +4 over 2 decks, surely you can follow that part. He then cuts those two decks + 1 other (-1) to the back which will then be behind the cut card. That is a total of +3 behind the cut card.

GR

 

[RJT]

You say you don't know about shuffle tracking then say you logic is flawless. Come again. If he is being half shoe'd, then they are cutting off three from six. His count of +5 over one deck gets diluted as it is shuffled to +4 over 2 decks, surely you can follow that part. He then cuts those two decks + 1 other (-1) to the back which will then be behind the cut card. That is a total of +3 behind the cut card.

GR

You're both talking about exactly the same thing. The +5 you start with, well it's one deck, so you consider yourself to be playing against 5 decks with a starting count of +5. +5/5= TC of 1. If you want to consider the deck it gets mixed with, it's average count would be -1, so the 2 decks you cut out have a count of +4. So you're playing 4 decks with a starting count of +4. +4/4= TC of 1. With another deck remove (which is another -1), you end with a count of +3 playing against 3 decks. +3/3= TC of +1. Because you're only ever dealing with an average for all the other decks it gets mixed with, it's never going to affect the TC. If they start cutting out 4 or 5 decks, the TC is still going to be 1.

Your method makes more assumption on the even distribution of the remaining cards. Personally i think i'd just treat it as 52 cards that i'd seen that were already in the dicard tray - a deck you've already seen and counted, essentially increasing the pen to 4/6 - but ultimately i don't suppose it makes that much difference.

RJT.

 

[tthree]

My statement travelled the wrong way past Traveller

I was impressed that his many adjustments came up with the correct true count of the top of the deck. Obviously there is great method that I dont understand. My point was if your strategy involved counting into the next shoe the correct RC to start with is +5 with 5 decks of 6 to be played. I also said I didnt know his strategy for playing the shoe so maybe counting the way traditionally done was not what would be done. I was trying to be helpful. If you think seeing 1 deck of with a count of +5 should be viewed differently because it was behind the cut card rather than in the discard tray I would love to understand the reason.

I suspect the elaborate method employed that came up with the correct TC is somehow an attempt to account for a partial slug ending up behind the cut card more commonly experienced when not half shoed. My statement had 2 points. First when being half shoed a simpler method might be able to be used to determine a more accurate starting position for the shoe. Second, I was interested in how you would determine the start point and continue playing when a partial slug would be expected behind the cut card.

I figured I explained myself well enough for him to see +5 was more accurate than +3 off the top of the shoe. And would get an explanation that would answer my unasked question.

 

[Traveller]

I was impressed that his many adjustments came up with the correct true count of the top of the deck. Obviously there is great method that I dont understand. My point was if your strategy involved counting into the next shoe the correct RC to start with is +5 with 5 decks of 6 to be played. I also said I didnt know his strategy for playing the shoe so maybe counting the way traditionally done was not what would be done. I was trying to be helpful. If you think seeing 1 deck of with a count of +5 should be viewed differently because it was behind the cut card rather than in the discard tray I would love to understand the reason.

I suspect the elaborate method employed that came up with the correct TC is somehow an attempt to account for a partial slug ending up behind the cut card more commonly experienced when not half shoed. My statement had 2 points. First when being half shoed a simpler method might be able to be used to determine a more accurate starting position for the shoe. Second, I was interested in how you would determine the start point and continue playing when a partial slug would be expected behind the cut card.

I figured I explained myself well enough for him to see +5 was more accurate than +3 off the top of the shoe. And would get an explanation that would answer my unasked question.

Your point did not pass me by, i'm trying to educate Sp1n-D1zzy.
+5 over 5 or +3 over 3 is no more accurate. I did it the way i did because when you start getting more complex counts over part decks mixed with a different count over a similar sized slug you need to eyeball what is where and mixing with what.

GR

 

[tthree]

help me understand

If you are sure the whole slug is behind the cut card what I outlined is more accurate and more powerful. You are starting correctly with RC +5 rather than +3 and getting penetration of 66% rather than 50%. If a partial slug would end up behind the cut card my way would be invalid and his way would have a good degree of error in that at least 2/3 of the cards behind the cut card are guessed at as averaging to zero.

Does this stuff really work? It seems equivalent to having counted 1 deck into a 6 deck shoe with 2 decks cut off and having an RC of +5 but deciding to include the cards behind the cut card as seen cards. Obviously no one would advocate that. I am curious. It must have some value but I would be afraid I would be over betting my advantage. In the case we are outlining you start with a lesser advantage. Is that to counterbalance the error factor in determining advantage demonstrated in my equivalent situation? What am I failing to consider due to ignorance?

 

[tthree]

I hope I didnt turn anyone off by using the word ignorance. I meant it . I have no expertise or even basic knowledge in ST. I am ignorant on this subject. I was hoping someone could enlighten me.