shuffle tracking?
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
You want the cookbook
BJAP covers a few shuffle tracking concepts in passing, but it's really geared toward ace location. Also, there's currently a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of BJAP (see blackjackforumonline.com, whereas the Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook has weathered the test of time.
BJAP covers a few shuffle tracking concepts in passing, but it's really geared toward ace location. Also, there's currently a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of BJAP (see blackjackforumonline.com, whereas the Shuffle Tracker's Cookbook has weathered the test of time.
Sonny
Well-Known Member
Shuffle Tracking
> which book would you recommend for shuffle tracking:
> blackjack ace prediction or shuffle tracking cookbook?
I believe that the cookbook has much more explicit information for tracking specific shuffles whereas Ace Prediction gives mostly the methodology of recognizing insufficient shuffles and determining their weaknesses. I would recommend the cookbook if you just want to learn how to track a particular shuffle, but if you want to know to track certain cards through a shuffle or know the secret "sweet spots" you should read Ace Prediction.
-Sonny-
> which book would you recommend for shuffle tracking:
> blackjack ace prediction or shuffle tracking cookbook?
I believe that the cookbook has much more explicit information for tracking specific shuffles whereas Ace Prediction gives mostly the methodology of recognizing insufficient shuffles and determining their weaknesses. I would recommend the cookbook if you just want to learn how to track a particular shuffle, but if you want to know to track certain cards through a shuffle or know the secret "sweet spots" you should read Ace Prediction.
-Sonny-
Titaniumman
Well-Known Member
The Current Hot Topic *LINK*
Arnold Snyder has written an article in the second edition of the new free electronic Blackjack Forum in which he points out serious flaws in McDowell's book. I have provided a link to the article.
On this page, there is a thread down below on this.
There is also discussions of this on Arnold's site and on BJ21.com Greenchip.
Arnold Snyder has written an article in the second edition of the new free electronic Blackjack Forum in which he points out serious flaws in McDowell's book. I have provided a link to the article.
On this page, there is a thread down below on this.
There is also discussions of this on Arnold's site and on BJ21.com Greenchip.
thanks for the link
Thanks alot!!I went to that link. I'm guessing he doesn't recommend McDowell's book
while in the link I saw an article, "special report: the best count
system". there is 100 systems listed in that article and a handful of
the systems that have a BC of 1.00. I know that criteria was only 1 deck,
but is that even possible with a multiple deck game?
Thanks alot!!I went to that link. I'm guessing he doesn't recommend McDowell's book
while in the link I saw an article, "special report: the best count
system". there is 100 systems listed in that article and a handful of
the systems that have a BC of 1.00. I know that criteria was only 1 deck,
but is that even possible with a multiple deck game?
Norm Wattenberger
Active Member
Good question *LINK*
ST Cookbook and BJ Ace Prediction are both highly valuable books. Neither is perfect. Completely ignore the recent comments on BJ Ace Prediction. The negative posters have ulterior motives and their math is not close. I know pros that use concepts from both. These are complex areas of advantage play. You cannot expect a complete recipe for success in print. But, you can gain important concepts from both books.
norm
ST Cookbook and BJ Ace Prediction are both highly valuable books. Neither is perfect. Completely ignore the recent comments on BJ Ace Prediction. The negative posters have ulterior motives and their math is not close. I know pros that use concepts from both. These are complex areas of advantage play. You cannot expect a complete recipe for success in print. But, you can gain important concepts from both books.
norm
Titaniumman
Well-Known Member
Why should they?
Completely ignore the recent comments on BJ Ace Prediction.
Norm,
These people are smarter than that. The criticisms about Blackjack Ace Prediction have been backed up with mathematics that many astute members of the blackjack community acknowledge.
Instead of telling people to ignore the criticisms, I strongly think you should be providing evidence, if it exists, to the contrary if you disagree.
Completely ignore the recent comments on BJ Ace Prediction.
Norm,
These people are smarter than that. The criticisms about Blackjack Ace Prediction have been backed up with mathematics that many astute members of the blackjack community acknowledge.
Instead of telling people to ignore the criticisms, I strongly think you should be providing evidence, if it exists, to the contrary if you disagree.
Norm Wattenberger
Active Member
Math *LINK* *PIC*
Several of the assumptions are incorrect in the recent posts on BJAP 'math.' I leave it to others to consider whether this was careless or malicious. But if anyone actually believes knowing the location of that many Aces will gain you nothing more than simply counting, then why do they even bother with BJ
Several of the assumptions are incorrect in the recent posts on BJAP 'math.' I leave it to others to consider whether this was careless or malicious. But if anyone actually believes knowing the location of that many Aces will gain you nothing more than simply counting, then why do they even bother with BJ
A little "non-expert" analysis of my own...
I am not at all an expert at Shuffle Tracking, but for fun I recently wrote my own code to study the standard single deck shuffle. I'll share some of the results here... though my program is much more specific than what I reproduce here...
If you key an ace (that is, look at the card above the ace in the discard tray) then perform the standard shuffle (riffle riffle strip riffle cut), then what I found out is that 24% of the time the ace and the key were "reversed" by a break, so that the key didn't work (the ace came out first). In the 76% of the shuffles that were trackable (there was no break), the ace appeared after the key within 13 cards almost exactly 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time, the ace and key were separated by more than 13 cards.
Thus:
if you see key before ace -- you have .8 aces in the next 13 cards by virtue of that keyed ace. Of the remaining 3 aces in the deck you can expect .75 of those to appear in the next 13 cards. Thus you will get 1.55 aces in the next 13 cards instead of the expected 1 ace. This is an extra .55/13 = .042 aces per card. Since an ace has an EV of about 50%, keying in this fashion gives an edge of approximately .042*.5 = .021 = 2.1% for the next 13 cards (or until the keyed ace comes out).
You only get this edge when
1) The ace and key are not reversed
2) The key appears early in the shuffle -- say the first 13 cards (so you will have the opportunity to see 13 more cards)
1) happens 76% of the time
2) happens 25% of the time
Thus your actual gained edge by using a keyed ace in single deck is:
(.76)*(.25)*(2.1%) = .40%
Now the house edge at single deck off the top is .18% so by keying a single ace in single deck, you can gain an edge of .40% - .18% = .22%.
By keying multiple aces, or refining the expected range for the ace after the key, higher edges can be attained.
OK, that's my story.
Finally, I want to extend a warm welcome to Norm. His comments about ST books are right on the money. Most books on ST have errors: some intentional, some accidental, some by virtue of incompetence. You have to choose what's valuable and correct and make it your own, but at some point you will have to do your own research (use Norm's software to help).
--Eliot
I am not at all an expert at Shuffle Tracking, but for fun I recently wrote my own code to study the standard single deck shuffle. I'll share some of the results here... though my program is much more specific than what I reproduce here...
If you key an ace (that is, look at the card above the ace in the discard tray) then perform the standard shuffle (riffle riffle strip riffle cut), then what I found out is that 24% of the time the ace and the key were "reversed" by a break, so that the key didn't work (the ace came out first). In the 76% of the shuffles that were trackable (there was no break), the ace appeared after the key within 13 cards almost exactly 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time, the ace and key were separated by more than 13 cards.
Thus:
if you see key before ace -- you have .8 aces in the next 13 cards by virtue of that keyed ace. Of the remaining 3 aces in the deck you can expect .75 of those to appear in the next 13 cards. Thus you will get 1.55 aces in the next 13 cards instead of the expected 1 ace. This is an extra .55/13 = .042 aces per card. Since an ace has an EV of about 50%, keying in this fashion gives an edge of approximately .042*.5 = .021 = 2.1% for the next 13 cards (or until the keyed ace comes out).
You only get this edge when
1) The ace and key are not reversed
2) The key appears early in the shuffle -- say the first 13 cards (so you will have the opportunity to see 13 more cards)
1) happens 76% of the time
2) happens 25% of the time
Thus your actual gained edge by using a keyed ace in single deck is:
(.76)*(.25)*(2.1%) = .40%
Now the house edge at single deck off the top is .18% so by keying a single ace in single deck, you can gain an edge of .40% - .18% = .22%.
By keying multiple aces, or refining the expected range for the ace after the key, higher edges can be attained.
OK, that's my story.
Finally, I want to extend a warm welcome to Norm. His comments about ST books are right on the money. Most books on ST have errors: some intentional, some accidental, some by virtue of incompetence. You have to choose what's valuable and correct and make it your own, but at some point you will have to do your own research (use Norm's software to help).
--Eliot
zengrifter
Banned
Norm, you are no...
... PROFESSOR! zg
... PROFESSOR! zg
stainless steel rat
Well-Known Member
A counter "comes of age"
Here is my own "story" about a simple-minded shuffle-tracking opportunity.
A couple of years ago my usual "group" was visiting an indian casino. My brother son and I were playing a 6d shoe that was getting pretty good penetration, and had good rules excepting late surrender which was not available here. We had played for two days off and on, and something kept "tickling" my sub-conscious, but I could not figure out what it was.
Finally, the last morning (we were leaving that night) the following happened...
On two consecutive shoes, the RC hit over +10, and bam, out came the stop card. My brother had looked at me as we were getting beat up betting big and the small cards were flying, running the RC up and running our bankroll down. After the second shoe of +10 and beyond, as I set there stewing, this is what I saw:
The dealer took the remaining unplayed deck (we were getting 5 of 6 decks dealt from this dealer) and stuck them on top of the discard stack. He then took the discards out, broke them into two piles, and started shuffling. He made a grab from each pile, maybe 1/2 deck in each grab, riffled the cards, but didn't "square" them up. He put this "approximate deck" in the center. He made two more grabs, one from each pile, riffled and stacked. He repeated until all 6 decks were nicely riffled and stacked, then he called out "check shuffle" or something like that. The pit boss looked over and said "OK". The dealer squared the cards, offered me the cut card, and it dawned on me... "that last 52 cards had a running count of +10. It is roughly now distributed over the bottom two decks in this pile. I carefully placed the cut card about 2 decks from the rear, to bring that 2 decks of +5 each to the front, and immediately plonked out my big bet. My brother stared, and raised his bet a big with a puzzled look. My son ditto. Needless to say, the first third of that shoe was quite friendly. As the stop card came out, my brother got up to leave and I followed. He asked "what was that all about???" I said let's go up to the room and I'll show you." I did and he said "wow".
Flash forward a couple of months to a visit to vegas. First shoe was similar, good RC, out comes the stop card leaving maybe 1.25 decks left. OK, let's get ready to watch the dealer.
You know the rest of the story. Different process entirely. Dealer took the 1.25 decks left, broke it into three slugs, inserted each at different points in the discard trey. Then two shuffle passes. The first just like the indian store, the second took two grabs and shuffled, put down 1/2 and used that with a single grab from one of the remaining piles, to further dilute those slugs, as if splitting them up wasn't enough. So, for that trip, we relied on counting alone and did OK.
I assume this doesn't reveal too much since the idea is old hat. If you think it does, feel free to bust this post. I was proud of the idea, but the vegas trip quickly showed us that not only had the idea been previously exploited, but that the house had an effective counter-measure.
I have not studied any advanced shuffle-tracking stuff, I don't want my head to explode when playing at the table. But those single shuffles can be murdered, and yes, I have seen one within the last 6 months still..
Here is my own "story" about a simple-minded shuffle-tracking opportunity.
A couple of years ago my usual "group" was visiting an indian casino. My brother son and I were playing a 6d shoe that was getting pretty good penetration, and had good rules excepting late surrender which was not available here. We had played for two days off and on, and something kept "tickling" my sub-conscious, but I could not figure out what it was.
Finally, the last morning (we were leaving that night) the following happened...
On two consecutive shoes, the RC hit over +10, and bam, out came the stop card. My brother had looked at me as we were getting beat up betting big and the small cards were flying, running the RC up and running our bankroll down. After the second shoe of +10 and beyond, as I set there stewing, this is what I saw:
The dealer took the remaining unplayed deck (we were getting 5 of 6 decks dealt from this dealer) and stuck them on top of the discard stack. He then took the discards out, broke them into two piles, and started shuffling. He made a grab from each pile, maybe 1/2 deck in each grab, riffled the cards, but didn't "square" them up. He put this "approximate deck" in the center. He made two more grabs, one from each pile, riffled and stacked. He repeated until all 6 decks were nicely riffled and stacked, then he called out "check shuffle" or something like that. The pit boss looked over and said "OK". The dealer squared the cards, offered me the cut card, and it dawned on me... "that last 52 cards had a running count of +10. It is roughly now distributed over the bottom two decks in this pile. I carefully placed the cut card about 2 decks from the rear, to bring that 2 decks of +5 each to the front, and immediately plonked out my big bet. My brother stared, and raised his bet a big with a puzzled look. My son ditto. Needless to say, the first third of that shoe was quite friendly. As the stop card came out, my brother got up to leave and I followed. He asked "what was that all about???" I said let's go up to the room and I'll show you." I did and he said "wow".
Flash forward a couple of months to a visit to vegas. First shoe was similar, good RC, out comes the stop card leaving maybe 1.25 decks left. OK, let's get ready to watch the dealer.
You know the rest of the story. Different process entirely. Dealer took the 1.25 decks left, broke it into three slugs, inserted each at different points in the discard trey. Then two shuffle passes. The first just like the indian store, the second took two grabs and shuffled, put down 1/2 and used that with a single grab from one of the remaining piles, to further dilute those slugs, as if splitting them up wasn't enough. So, for that trip, we relied on counting alone and did OK.
I assume this doesn't reveal too much since the idea is old hat. If you think it does, feel free to bust this post. I was proud of the idea, but the vegas trip quickly showed us that not only had the idea been previously exploited, but that the house had an effective counter-measure.
I have not studied any advanced shuffle-tracking stuff, I don't want my head to explode when playing at the table. But those single shuffles can be murdered, and yes, I have seen one within the last 6 months still..
stainless steel rat
Well-Known Member
one more note
On another visit to the "indian store" I found an 8d game with that same simple-minded shuffle. I missed the stop card insertion trying to find my brother but found him and we sat down to play. Stop card came out, running count was up at +14, and I thought, OK, time to exploit this. Then I looked as the dealer was removing the undealt cards and damn, there was a lot of them. After she did the simple shuffle, she used the width of the stop card (about 2.5") to mark the point from the rear of the pack to where the stop card was inserted. At .6 inches per deck or a little less, we were getting 50-55% penetration. In an 8D game.
next table, please. We did play later and found a dealer cutting off about 1 deck rather than 3-4 decks and did pretty well.
I thought 50% on DD was bad. but on 8D?
Of course they needed it to offset the horrible shuffle.
On another visit to the "indian store" I found an 8d game with that same simple-minded shuffle. I missed the stop card insertion trying to find my brother but found him and we sat down to play. Stop card came out, running count was up at +14, and I thought, OK, time to exploit this. Then I looked as the dealer was removing the undealt cards and damn, there was a lot of them. After she did the simple shuffle, she used the width of the stop card (about 2.5") to mark the point from the rear of the pack to where the stop card was inserted. At .6 inches per deck or a little less, we were getting 50-55% penetration. In an 8D game.
next table, please. We did play later and found a dealer cutting off about 1 deck rather than 3-4 decks and did pretty well.
I thought 50% on DD was bad. but on 8D?
Of course they needed it to offset the horrible shuffle.
suicyco maniac
Well-Known Member
Crappy penetration
Can sometimes be a big benifit when tracking. SM
Can sometimes be a big benifit when tracking. SM
stainless steel rat
Well-Known Member
maybe
the idea will "hit" me at some point. But 50% in 8D was something I couldn't come up with an idea that I could mentally manage. The RC would not likely go very high with that many cards out of play, and using my "highly simplistic shuffle-tracking idea" I end up with a whole shoe with the average count of the last half of the old shoe plus the negative of the RC for the first half, which is probably going to be about zero.
In any case, the idea has gotten my attention, and I'm going to start watching shuffles more closely, and am probably going to write a shuffle simulator so that I can understand what is happening to the cards "in general".
Without much thought, I suspect that the ideas of ace-tracking, etc, are a result of the more thorough shuffling techniques that make the old trick I stumbled onto ineffective.
wish I'd started playing 30 years earlier.
the idea will "hit" me at some point. But 50% in 8D was something I couldn't come up with an idea that I could mentally manage. The RC would not likely go very high with that many cards out of play, and using my "highly simplistic shuffle-tracking idea" I end up with a whole shoe with the average count of the last half of the old shoe plus the negative of the RC for the first half, which is probably going to be about zero.
In any case, the idea has gotten my attention, and I'm going to start watching shuffles more closely, and am probably going to write a shuffle simulator so that I can understand what is happening to the cards "in general".
Without much thought, I suspect that the ideas of ace-tracking, etc, are a result of the more thorough shuffling techniques that make the old trick I stumbled onto ineffective.
wish I'd started playing 30 years earlier.