Cut Card Effect

I’d like some help with my reasoning of the cut card effect on a shoe game. I am used to playing a shoe game using eight decks, with the cut card placed about three decks in, so only five of the eight decks are dealt.

It seems to me that with this setup, the cut card helps the players. If the front of the shoe is rich in high cards, more hands are dealt. If it is rich in low cards, fewer hands are dealt. Therefore, the players get to play more hands when the shoe is favorable, and fewer hands when it is unfavorable. Thus, with only five-deck penetration in an eight deck shoe, it looks like the cut card benefits the basic strategy player.

Am I missing something?

At least for a counter it's bad. The cut card is reached quickly when you have the advantage, and slowly when TC is low.

Over time it will neither help nor hurt the players. The chance of "good front of the shoe" are same as a "bad" one. The reason for the cut card is so the dealer does not run out of cards. The reason for cutting off three decks is so counters cannot get a true count.

Excellent summation, AZ. Let me add that penetration of about 63% makes this game unplayable with just straight card counting.

Cutting off three out of eight decks is obviously to close out the counters. Counting against that setup is a waste of time. By the time you establish a good count – it’s time to shuffle.

I agree that a “good” or “bad” shoe is equally likely to occur. However, I get back to my original point: more hands will be dealt from the “good” shoe than the “bad” one.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

If a casino is cutting off 3 decks in an 8 deck shoe, you can be certain that they are 100% paranoid of counters. Also these same casinos are losing millions of dollars with this paranoia.

If casinos got rid of their paranoia and replaced it with common sense then CET would be debt-free by now.

I address the cut card effect in my blackjack appendix 10.

My apologies for bumping an old thread, but I had the exact same question as the OP and it doesn't appear that the topic was resolved. The OP has a convincing argument (ie "more hands" = better for the player), how in the world could a cut card hurt the player's odds?

I find the argument in the blackjack appendix 10 unconvincing- ie "However, if the dealer deals out much more than the average number of hands in a cut card game, then the last hands tend to be very bad for the player." Really? Isn't it just as likely that the first few hands were very bad for the player, followed by a bunch of short hands with big cards? And even if it were true that the last few hands are bad for the player, isn't that only because the first few hands were good for the player?

Is everyone in agreement that a cut card hurts the player's odds?

Edit: to be clear, I'm talking only about basic strategy play, not counting cards.

The way I try to clarify the cut card effect is to take an extreme situation.

For example, say you are playing a 6-deck game and the cut card comes out after just 10 cards have been dealt (and then the cards are shuffled for a new shoe).

Situation 1 - Your first hand you are dealt 10, Q and the dealer has J, K for a 'push'. The 2nd hand you are dealt A, Q and the dealer has 10, 9 so you are paid for 'Blackjack'. 8 cards have been dealt so the dealer will deal a final 3rd hand before the cut card appears. This 3rd hand will be played at a higher disadvantage than if you were to play a hand from the top of a fresh deck.

Situation 2 - Your first hand is 3, 2 and the dealer has a 7. You hit and get a 2, hit again and get another 2 and hit again and get a 4 (to make 13). You draw again and it's a 3 so you have 16. You take one more card and it's a 5 so you end up with 21. Dealer draws a 4 and an 8 to make 19 so you win. However, 10 cards have been dealt so it's a new shoe BUT the house edge would have been lower IF you could have played another hand, due to the cards that have come out.

So, in these extreme cases, you are playing a 2nd (and possibly 3rd) hand when the odds are worse but when they are slightly better for you the cards are shuffled.

This effect dilutes the further you place the cut card but it still has an effect, albeit small, even when the cut card is placed deeply into the shoe.

Hope this helps!

Thanks for the response.

It seems to me that in situation 1, the third hand is worse only because the first two hands were quick, which should favor the player. So a couple of "good" hands followed by a bad hand. The second situation makes sense, although if the cut card were 15 or 20 deep instead of 10 then you'd be in line for some good hands after the first bad one.

To use your same framework, consider that the first 10 cards could have a lot of tens or a lot of little cards. If it has a lot of 10's, you are going to be playing more hands that will be more advantageous to the player. If its a lot of little cards, the player is at a disadvantage but won't play as many hands. It seems the player should actually benefit in this scenario.