Aria Blackjack house edge?
I'm a new member to the site. I just came back from a great stay at the Aria, and have a quick question regarding the house edge on the multi-deck blackjack.
Aria does a shuffle style I haven't seen before in casinos where I am from (Michigan). At Aria, the cards come from an auto shuffle machine holding 6 decks; once a whole deck has been dealt, the cards in the discard pile are added back to the auto shuffle machine.
How does this affect the house edge for a 6 deck, DAS, H17 game, and resplit of aces for a player with perfect basic strategy?
Thanks!
Quote: jjdemickHello all,
I'm a new member to the site. I just came back from a great stay at the Aria, and have a quick question regarding the house edge on the multi-deck blackjack.
Aria does a shuffle style I haven't seen before in casinos where I am from (Michigan). At Aria, the cards come from an auto shuffle machine holding 6 decks; once a whole deck has been dealt, the cards in the discard pile are added back to the auto shuffle machine.
How does this affect the house edge for a 6 deck, DAS, H17 game, and resplit of aces for a player with perfect basic strategy?
Thanks!
It sounds like the machine is a continuous shuffle machine or CSM. If the cards were returned to the machine after every hand the house edge for that game would drop from 0.48263% to 0.4593%. This slight advantage for the player is offset by the 20% more hands per hour that can be dealt when using the machine. Do they always wait until one deck has been dealt before returning the cards to the machine?
Welcome to the forum. Take a moment to familiarize yourself with the rules so you won't get suspended for an innocent mistake.
Quote: jjdemickHello all,
I'm a new member to the site. I just came back from a great stay at the Aria, and have a quick question regarding the house edge on the multi-deck blackjack.
Aria does a shuffle style I haven't seen before in casinos where I am from (Michigan). At Aria, the cards come from an auto shuffle machine holding 6 decks; once a whole deck has been dealt, the cards in the discard pile are added back to the auto shuffle machine.
How does this affect the house edge for a 6 deck, DAS, H17 game, and resplit of aces for a player with perfect basic strategy?
Thanks!
I have never been to Aria, but it sounds like you are describing a CSM, not an ASM. It doesn't do anything to the edge.
Quote: 1BBIt sounds like the machine is a continuous shuffle machine or CSM. If the cards were returned to the machine after every hand the house edge for that game would drop from 0.48263% to 0.4593%. This slight advantage for the player is offset by the 20% more hands per hour that can be dealt when using the machine. Do they always wait until one deck has been dealt before returning the cards to the machine?
Welcome to the forum. Take a moment to familiarize yourself with the rules so you won't get suspended for an innocent mistake.
Are you sure this is correct...he is not asking how a traditional 4D shuffler compares to a 6D shoe, he is asking if the latency has any effect...I think.
Quote: SonuvabishIt doesn't do anything to the edge.
Umm.... cut card effect?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceUmm.... cut card effect?
The way I read it, he's not comparing it to a shoe...he's asking about the latency. There's no cut card effect, to my knowledge, if they wait a few rounds before putting all the cards back into the shuffler. Obviously, there is a slight difference in edge between a CSM and shoe, due to the cut card, and sometimes the amount of decks used. I haven't been to Aria...if I am reading this wrong, I'd be curious as to what he's talking about.
Quote: SonuvabishAre you sure this is correct...he is not asking how a traditional 4D shuffler compares to a 6D shoe, he is asking if the latency has any effect...I think.
Perhaps I misunderstood the question which I thought was about the cut card effect. The question was about six decks so I compared a six deck CSM game to a six deck hand shuffled game with the same rules. I'm not convinced that the one2six machines use six decks but I used six to get the point across.
The point is that the house edge drops slightly with a CSM. The more decks in the machine, the more the edge drops. If that wasn't what you were looking for, jjdemick, feel free to keep the discussion going.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWhy would these machines not use six decks? Or am I reading this wrong?
I had a long and interesting conversation with a couple of SHFL techs, before it was called SHFL, and they said that many casinos used four or five decks in order to save on the cost of the cards. I'll admit my ignorance on the subject by asking does the name of the machine mean that only 1,2 or 6 decks can be used?
Quote: IbeatyouracesThings change in the blink of an eye though.
UHOH - what have I missed…?
http://blackjackincolor.com/penetration2.htm
Quote: MathExtremistBottom line, there is no cut card effect with a CSM, but if the discards aren't immediately cycled back into the shoe then you could technically count down a deck's worth of cards. But that's pointless other than to slightly decrease the house edge because the average edge from counting just one deck in a 6 deck shoe (e.g. a 6 deck game with 16.7% penetration) is still negative:
http://blackjackincolor.com/penetration2.htm
If he's playing a CSM, he's certainly not interested in counting. In my experience, CSM's usually have less decks than a shoe, but I realize this isn't always the case. Maybe it's not the norm, as I don't travel.
Quote: SonuvabishThe way I read it, he's not comparing it to a shoe...he's asking about the latency. There's no cut card effect, to my knowledge, if they wait a few rounds before putting all the cards back into the shuffler. Obviously, there is a slight difference in edge between a CSM and shoe, due to the cut card, and sometimes the amount of decks used. I haven't been to Aria...if I am reading this wrong, I'd be curious as to what he's talking about.
I thought he was comparing it to a shoe.
If they wait a fixed number of rounds before putting the cards back in, there is no effect. However, if they wait until the discards grow to a certain size... you basically have a cut card, complete with cut card effect.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI thought he was comparing it to a shoe.
If they wait a fixed number of rounds before putting the cards back in, there is no effect. However, if they wait until the discards grow to a certain size... you basically have a cut card, complete with cut card effect.
Yeah, but he said one deck. Even it is based on a visual estimation and not a fixed number of rounds, the true count is always going to be near zero, and the effect insignificant. In addition, I don't think that it works the same because if a large number of low cards are dealt out, even tho they go back into the shuffler, there is probably a buffer before all these cards are mixed and have the same probability of being dealt. So you still get your extra round.
Quote: SonuvabishYeah, but he said one deck. Even it is based on a visual estimation and not a fixed number of rounds, the true count is always going to be near zero, and the effect insignificant. In addition, I don't think that it works the same because if a large number of low cards are dealt out, even tho they go back into the shuffler, there is probably a buffer before all these cards are mixed and have the same probability of being dealt. So you still get your extra round.
The extra round doesn't matter, because there is no reversion to 0 of the true count (only of the running count)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe extra round doesn't matter, because there is no reversion to 0 of the true count (only of the running count)
I don't understand your statement. If you believe there is a miniscule card effect in action due to visual estimation by the dealer, then the extra round without those cards in play does matter. In a hand shuffled game, you would not get that extra round, which is the basis for the cut card effect. I don't see the relation, but if the running count is zero, how is the true count anything but?
Quote: SonuvabishI don't understand your statement. If you believe there is a miniscule card effect in action due to visual estimation by the dealer, then the extra round without those cards in play does matter. In a hand shuffled game, you would not get that extra round, which is the basis for the cut card effect. I don't see the relation, but if the running count is zero, how is the true count anything but?
Procedure 1: You deal until you reach the cut card, finish the round, and then shuffle.
Procedure 2: You deal until you reach the cut card, finish the round, deal one more round, and then shuffle.
Both procedures introduce a cut card effect. Any system where you play a variable number of hands before shuffling, and that variable is based on the number of cards to come out (not the number of rounds) suffers from a cut card effect.
My other comment was just that the extra round does not "use up" the true count, because the true count does not revert towards 0 as cards are dealt (although the running count does).
And you guessed it right, I'm not interested in counting; just playing. The dealers all indicated 6 deck games when I asked them.
Thanks everyone for your replies! :)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceProcedure 1: You deal until you reach the cut card, finish the round, and then shuffle.
Procedure 2: You deal until you reach the cut card, finish the round, deal one more round, and then shuffle.
Both procedures introduce a cut card effect. Any system where you play a variable number of hands before shuffling, and that variable is based on the number of cards to come out (not the number of rounds) suffers from a cut card effect.
My other comment was just that the extra round does not "use up" the true count, because the true count does not revert towards 0 as cards are dealt (although the running count does).
Edit: In procedure 2, as it relates to the CSM, no rounds are added when the 'shoe' is deficient in high cards, so there is no effect.
Quote: SonuvabishIn procedure 2, although technically there is still an effect, it takes all the bite out of it. It becomes insignificant. I can find a link that should indirectly prove this if you have doubts.
I'd be interested in seeing that link. Obviously a lot depends on the depth of the cut card.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'd be interested in seeing that link. Obviously a lot depends on the depth of the cut card.
http://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm
Disregard that statement. Check out the edit. The edited statement is what the link I found indirectly shows, not my previous off the cuff response.
Quote: Sonuvabishhttp://www.blackjackincolor.com/blackjackeffects1.htm
Disregard that statement. Check out the edit.
I still think you are wrong. If the dealer is dealing until about a deck is left, then more rounds are added when fewer cards are used, which correlates with a negative count, which is the cut card effect.
And I'm not sure why you think that the link you posted is relevant. I know what the cut card effect is. It doesn't show what you were saying pre-edit (that always dealing one more round post-cut-card would negate the effect). The key is that you always deal it, so the number of rounds is still variable, and negatively correlated with count.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI still think you are wrong. If the dealer is dealing until about a deck is left, then more rounds are added when fewer cards are used, which correlates with a negative count, which is the cut card effect.
And I'm not sure why you think that the link you posted is relevant. I know what the cut card effect is. It doesn't show what you were saying pre-edit (that always dealing one more round post-cut-card would negate the effect). The key is that you always deal it, so the number of rounds is still variable, and negatively correlated with count.
You are right, it is not congruent with my reasoning before I looked it up--pre-edit. However, it still supports my overall conclusion. It shows overall, there is no effect on advantage until the final rounds, regardless of what cards come out beforehand.
The dealer is not dealing until one deck is left, he is dealing until one deck is out, then he puts it back in the CSM. I am not arguing you can avoid the cut-card effect in a hand-shuffled game. I am saying there is no cut card effect in a CSM, regardless of their procedure--even if that procedure relies on a highly variable amount of cards stacking in a discard try before they are re-inserted. The cards will stack up faster in a high count, and cycled back in quicker, which I believe leads you to reason there is a cut-card effect. But the only way the cards stack up slow is if a bunch of high cards come up, which means you had the advantage for a long period of time before the cards are recycled. The cut card effect comes at the end of the shoe, and it causes more play when it is known the deck is lean in high cards--or less play when it is rich. Here, there is no change in the number of rounds--the rounds never end. If there is any negative effect at all, it would be insignificantly small--and not of the same magnitude of the cut-card effect in a 6D shoe. To this last statement, we must agree. I have doubts about the existence of your 'CSM effect', but let us at least distinguish it from the cut card effect.
Quote: SonuvabishYou are right, it is not congruent with my reasoning before I looked it up--pre-edit. However, it still supports my overall conclusion. It shows overall, there is no effect on advantage until the final rounds, regardless of what cards come out beforehand.
Yes but I think that you are a little bit confused. The reason that the effect is large on the final rounds is because those are the rounds that would otherwise not be dealt. Backing things up doesn't change anything.
In other words, with the chart that you showed, there is a large effect in the 7th round because there is only a 7th round when the count is bad. If the count is good, there is no 7th round. If you decrease penetration a bit you would see that effect on the 6th round instead of the 7th.
Honestly, that chart is an extremely misleading way of presenting the cut card effect If you think of the cut card effect like a preferential shuffle (which it is) it's a lot clearer.
The dealer is not dealing until one deck is left, he is dealing until one deck is out, then he puts it back in the CSM. I am not arguing you can avoid the cut-card effect in a hand-shuffled game. I am saying there is no cut card effect in a CSM, regardless of their procedure--even if that procedure relies on a highly variable amount of cards stacking in a discard try before they are re-inserted. The cards will stack up faster in a high count, and cycled back in quicker, which I believe leads you to reason there is a cut-card effect. But the only way the cards stack up slow is if a bunch of high cards come up, which means you had the advantage for a long period of time before the cards are recycled. The cut card effect comes at the end of the shoe, and it causes more play when it is known the deck is lean in high cards--or less play when it is rich. Here, there is no change in the number of rounds--the rounds never end. If there is any negative effect at all, it would be insignificantly small.
Of course there is a change in the number of rounds! It's the number of rounds between shuffles. The shuffle occurs when the stub is placed back in the CSM. (the fact that the unused cards are constantly being shuffled is, of course, irrelevant -- the "shuffle" here is just the thing that resets the count to 0)
Your argument about having the advantage as the high cards come out early in the shoe is irrelevant and misleading (and causes people to misunderstand the cut card effect). Of course, sometimes big cards come out first, and sometimes small cards come out first, but those events even out in the long run. The key to the cut card effect is that when the big cards come out first, you keep those cards from being shuffled back in right away, but when the small cards come out first, you shuffle them back in sooner. It's a preferential shuffle.
I do apologize for being unclear about whether I was requesting comparison to a shoe nor not; I was asking about the latency, and the effect it has on the house edge. I've never seen this behavior elsewhere, be it either at Detroit casinos or other places. Just seemed like a weird way to deal a game from a CSM. It did seem to affect how much players would win; I sat down each day I was there, and left the blackjack table with an average of 200% my bankroll after only an hour or so, just playing basic strategy. It seemed as though everyone who sat at the tables with me also won similar amounts of money, except for a gentleman from Australia who was just having a bad day.
In my opinion (although I could be wrong), I would believe that depending on what cards come up from the CSM, if the cards are not returned, the CSM would contain significantly higher numbers of larger or smaller cards. As the CSM nears the 5 deck mark, the composition could be changed to where counting could possibly have an impact, but this would only be true for the short span of time when the dealer did not shuffle the discards back in.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice
Your argument about having the advantage as the high cards come out early in the shoe is irrelevant and misleading (and causes people to misunderstand the cut card effect). Of course, sometimes big cards come out first, and sometimes small cards come out first, but those events even out in the long run. The key to the cut card effect is that when the big cards come out first, you keep those cards from being shuffled back in right away, but when the small cards come out first, you shuffle them back in sooner. It's a preferential shuffle.
This seems convincing enough for me to believe there is an effect. And to the casino, 24/7 365 days a year, it may mean something. But to an individual player, I cannot see it as more than negligible. As proof of this, the Wizard is silent on the issue. What's your defense to that?
Quote: SonuvabishThis seems convincing enough for me to believe there is an effect. And to the casino, 24/7 365 days a year, it may mean something. But to an individual player, I cannot see it as more than negligible. As proof of this, the Wizard is silent on the issue. What's your defense to that?
I'm pretty sure that the Wizard is not silent about the cut card effect. In his house edge calculator, you will notice that he gives "realistic" and "optimal" results. For a shoe game, the difference is almost all cut-card effect (composition-dependent strategy is not worth much once you get up to 6+ decks)
Also, there is a different thread right now about the best game in Vegas. The cut card effect is being discussed there, wrt the El Cortez game. 2 cut card effect threads in one day!!! I'm in heaven...
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI'm pretty sure that the Wizard is not silent about the cut card effect. In his house edge calculator, you will notice that he gives "realistic" and "optimal" results. For a shoe game, the difference is almost all cut-card effect (composition-dependent strategy is not worth much once you get up to 6+ decks)
Also, there is a different thread right now about the best game in Vegas. The cut card effect is being discussed there, wrt the El Cortez game. 2 cut card effect threads in one day!!! I'm in heaven...
No, I mean he is silent on it as it relates to the CSM...lol I swear you are ADDing in this thread. Take it as a compliment, you still won the argument.
