newbie49
• Posts: 63
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
January 8th, 2013 at 5:42:12 PM permalink
Quote: Footnote #5 on this wizard page : wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/rule-variations/

This strange rule is actually followed in Pennsylvania, on Shufflemaster TMS-300 video multi-player blackjack games. State law prohibits one player taking the cards of another player. The way they implement this rule is to give every player, and the dealer, a separate shoe. The dealer plays out his hand first, secretly, and the results stored in memory. Then the cards used by the dealer are removed for each player shoe. When all players have finished acting the game shows what cards the dealer drew already. According to Shufflemaster, the effect of this rule is 0.02% in favor of the dealer. Shufflemaster wishes to add this rule is part of a patent-pending technology.

Why would shufflemaster claim this strange rule cause the house edge to increase by 0.02%? If I am playing (total dependent) basic strategy + flat bet, the effect should be 0?
cclub79
• Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
January 8th, 2013 at 5:46:32 PM permalink
Quote: newbie49

Why would shufflemaster claim this strange rule cause the house edge to increase by 0.02%? If I am playing (total dependent) basic strategy + flat bet, the effect should be 0?

If the effect of card removal is eliminated by two separate sets of decks, it will cause a very slight change.

Also, I wonder if those rules even matter anymore, now that actual table games are legal and you can indeed "take cards of another player"? I can't imagine they cared to change the chips in the few machines they've kept, but that shouldn't be a state law anymore.
GH
• Posts: 272
Joined: Oct 21, 2012
January 8th, 2013 at 6:19:51 PM permalink
Could someone explain this concept of "taking another player's cards?"
AxiomOfChoice
• Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
January 8th, 2013 at 6:29:16 PM permalink
Quote: GH

Could someone explain this concept of "taking another player's cards?"

If I understand it correctly, the idea is, since I am only playing against the dealer, how you play your hand can't have an effect on my results, even if I play after you.

So, say we the only two at a table. I have an 11, and you have a 16. The next card is a 10, and the following card is a 2 (obviously we don't know this). If you choose to hit, and I double, I will have a 13. If you choose to stand and I double, I will have a 21. Your decision affects my results on that hand, and that doesn't seem to be allowed.

Of course it all evens out in the end, but they seem to be talking about a per-hand rule rather than a long-term expectation thing. A stupid rule if I ever heard one, but remember that these rules aren't made by people who necessarily know anything about gambling.
cclub79
• Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
January 8th, 2013 at 6:46:03 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

If I understand it correctly, the idea is, since I am only playing against the dealer, how you play your hand can't have an effect on my results, even if I play after you.

So, say we the only two at a table. I have an 11, and you have a 16. The next card is a 10, and the following card is a 2 (obviously we don't know this). If you choose to hit, and I double, I will have a 13. If you choose to stand and I double, I will have a 21. Your decision affects my results on that hand, and that doesn't seem to be allowed.

Of course it all evens out in the end, but they seem to be talking about a per-hand rule rather than a long-term expectation thing. A stupid rule if I ever heard one, but remember that these rules aren't made by people who necessarily know anything about gambling.

Right. I used the term because they used it. I suppose it could be used to prevent fights between stupid players, though most of the time I played there, the players didn't know about the rule and still thought they were changing the outcome by taking or not taking cards. "You took the dealer's bust card!" "No, I didn't, he has a separate deck", "Huh? I don't know what that means, but you took his bust card..."
mrclean
• Posts: 56
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
January 8th, 2013 at 7:28:30 PM permalink
Quote: newbie49

Why would shufflemaster claim this strange rule cause the house edge to increase by 0.02%? If I am playing (total dependent) basic strategy + flat bet, the effect should be 0?

The way I understand it the more cards that are left to be drawn the more possibilities there are to improve a hand.

If there is one shoe for everyone at the table and the dealer is acting last, all those cards that come out before the dealer acts are no longer available to the dealer.

So if the dealer has their own shoe they have access to more cards that might improve their hand.

I believe this is the same idea behind why the house has a bigger edge with a 8 deck shoe over a 6 deck shoe.
Buzzard
• Posts: 6814
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
January 8th, 2013 at 7:57:20 PM permalink
I think this is an urban legend. Shufflemaster used 6 different shoes on earlier model and it was all over the web that was done so a players could not affect any other players hand. NOT TRUE.

It was done because of the Royal Match side bet. It would be possible that the last player to act might not be able to get a Royal Match if the vards were in other players hand. The gaming commission decided this was analagous to a player putting his money in a slot
machine and the jackpot not being available to him.

Until somebody can link to regulations, I put this in the same category. BULLSHIT.
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet