That "Blackjack Therapy" is good, but some of his understanding is way off the mark.
"In both examples it would seem to be very shallow penetration, but from a careful reading of Theory of Blackjack (all editions would have this information) by Peter Griffin, all the hands played are at that depth. It is if you were allowed to play thousands of shoes by first seeing 75 cards + burned, played the round (and included the players cards now on the layout, which helps too –so never let the top counted round “expire,” in your running count until the end of each round). The edge is not spectacular but it is still an edge and few casinos will believe it is there; just look at the odd fact the true count divisor is always the total number of decks in the pack again! It is too strange, but the income player, with a black chip and higher bankroll, would do well to play these games, raise their bets ferociously (at least for now) and milk that casino for every possible comp. Even after it is proven this edge exists the surveilence staff is going to find it hard to prove that the player is counting (thankfully there have been enough outside -- and even a few inside quiet stockholder -- lawsuits where some degree of proof is needed to throw out possible counters –the Coast Casinos group excluded)."
That whole paragraph is pretty much complete rubbish. He seems to be saying that he believes you can card count a CSM. But of course the fallacy he missed is that you do not get to continue playing at the same depth, because the cards are shuffled back in. You really only get 20 cards at that depth.
