Card Clumping, an Odd Coincidence, and a Very Curious Observation.
First, a brief history.
Years ago, I spent a lot of time in the Sands Casino in Atlantic City. I probably wasn't considered a Whale, but I definitely was a Big Fish. I had a hefty amount of Casino Credit, was always flown in to Philly and shuttled in a stretch Limo, I was given my own suite, and never paid for a single meal or drink. I could bore you with other lavish comps I received but that's irrelevant to my experiences in casinos today or to this story. My point is, I know my way around a casino. Truth is, I was playing lucky. I was on a winning streak that lasted about 2 years w hen my bankroll finally evaporated (ironically i went bust at the Claridge, not the Sands, playing black jack with a true Whale), my casino life came to a halt. I was playing basic BJ strategy, but the only streak I had that day was a losing streak. This is key part of my post today, but all those years ago I never realized the significance. While playing at this high stakes table (it was just me and another guy, who was allowed to play 3 hands while I was not even though I tried), I commented that I liked how quickly the dealer shuffled the deck vs how slowly it was done at The Sands. At The Sands, they would actually put the cards into a big pile and swirl them around in between sessions of cutting and ruffling. At the Claridge, they just cut and ruffled. Well, my $15,000 was gone in a few hours and I found myself in a Limo being driven from AC to Pittsburgh Airport (bad weather canceled flights that day and I was done--forever in AC).
In fact it was probably 10 years or more before I even stepped foot in a casino again and from then on, it was mostly slot play for me. Table games lost their appeal and Blackjack become boring and it seemed I'd lose more often. In the old days, it was nothing to sit down and be up $600 one shoe and maybe down $400 the next and up $100 on the following one--and that's at $5 or $10 min table. In fact while playing at the Sands, it became boring just eeking out even money for hours on end, which is probably how I ended up betting $500-$2500 per hand. But while the game wasn't always beatable--if you played with basic strategy you could at least play for a long time without losing too much money.
It wasn't until casinos came to PA and later, that I moved to NM that I began frequenting them again. My days of being treated special are long gone and now I'm just one of the suckers that help build these places. Which brings me to last week.
After getting my clock cleaned playing slots, Hold'em, and Bingo (oh how far I've sunk). I make my way over to the $5 BJ table and buy-in for $200. Although in the last two years or so, I've spent a lot more time in casinos, I hardly ever played blackjack....in fact....it had been so long, that was having trouble adding up the cards to 21 and my strategy basics were very very rusty. I'd find myself asking "do i hit"? "Should I double?" Well after one particularily bad shoe busted out everybody at the table except me, I found myself alone with the dealer who was reshuffling. For no reason, i just threw out the statement, "Something changed in this game, but I don't know what or how". She said, 'what do you mean?" and I said, "In the old days, BJ was the game to play in the casino because, even though the house holds the advantage, it's pretty low and you can play for a while." Then I added," but now something is different....dealers make their number more than they bust and all things being equal, you should have 16 as much as me but you don't and when you do, you make a number and don't bust. In the old days, you could count on a dealer going but when they showed a 4, 5, or 6, not always but enough so that employing basic strategy would keep you in the game. But now, it seems that basic strategy is useless. Especially if I'm always having to his my 13, 14, 15, and 16's and when your 6 turns into 8, 9, or 10. And the one thing I cannot get used to is how often the dealer gets to 20 or 21 by turning over one low card after another. I'm not saying it didn't happen before, it did, but not nearly as frequently as it does today."
Without missing a beat, the dealer said, "we know how to shuffle." Before she even finished, I dismissed this as a joke, even saying to her, "no, i don't believe that for a minute, that's not possible." Then today I read about card clumping and how the shuffle really might not really be random. I know people disagree about this, but from a strictly emotional and admittedly gut feeling, I do believe that the grouping of losing hands does indeed create a bias of numerous losing hands and or bad counts to start with. This explains why today, the number of 13, 14, 15, and 16 starting hands are just so more numerous than in the past. I even noticed that out of 5 shoes, there's always one that seems to be good..seems to have a lot of high cards come out which is accounted for in most card clumping theories.
So these are the feelings that I have had about BJ for the past few years, and the results I see now every time I play. Even when I was losing in the old days, there still people at the table who were winning, but now it sure seems that everybody playing at the table loses--even if everybody is employing basic strategy.
I now am starting to think that the dealing at the Claridge was the first time I had played where the cards were being clumped---it might explain why I lost so much, maybe it wasn't but added to my general feeling about how BJ became more and more favorable to the house and the comment the dealer made, today I believe card clumping is real and is a huge advantage for the house.
I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't even thinking about whether or not it's beatable...i'm just saying that I came to conclusion that the game has changed over the years, without even knowing about card clumping and that the dealer may have even admitted to it by the way she is taught to rake the cards and to shuffle. I guess, to the experts in this forum it's old news but to people who think that basic strategy can still be effective or that the house odds have remained the same, it might be time for a new look at this game. Just from playing experience, I can see a difference in the game of today vs the game i used to play at the Sands. But i'd love to hear more about how to beat it.
Quote: Dicenor33I absolutely agree. Today's BJ gives a house 3-5 % edge, making it one of the worst games on a floor.
What?
Quote: Dicenor33I absolutely agree. Today's BJ gives a house 3-5 % edge, making it one of the worst games on a floor.
You seem to not care much for blackjack and that's fine but where do you get your figures? The highest house edge in the Wizards entire Las Vegas Survey is 1.16% and most games are less than half that. A 6:5 game will add about 1.39%.
Clumping gives a house an enormous advantage. Cards are not mixed the way they suppose to be. They don't let you watch when they wash. At high count you break even at best, and most people stop drawing against dealers 2-6 face cards, and of course, he gets his cards to beat you.Quote: SonuvabishWhat?
Quote: Dicenor33Clumping gives a house an enormous advantage. Cards are not mixed the way they suppose to be. They don't let you watch when they wash. At high count you break even at best, and most people stop drawing against dealers 2-6 face cards, and of course, he gets his cards to beat you.
I have never been in a casino that wouldn't allow the wash to be watched. Most won't allow you to sit at the table during the wash but you are certainly welcome to observe.
Quote: Dicenor33Clumping gives a house an enormous advantage. Cards are not mixed the way they suppose to be. They don't let you watch when they wash. At high count you break even at best, and most people stop drawing against dealers 2-6 face cards, and of course, he gets his cards to beat you.
I'll repeat...What?
Quote: anonimussI've beaten Claridge for a lot of money throughout the years playing blackjack. Next theory.
As have I.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWe break even at high counts? I've been wasting my time all these years raising my bets into them? Damn!
If the house starts with a 5% advantage, how would you even break even? Must get a lot of +10 counts.
Quote: wudgedThe TC hits 10 and never higher!
LOL
Quote: Dicenor33Clumping gives a house an enormous advantage. Cards are not mixed the way they suppose to be. They don't let you watch when they wash. At high count you break even at best, and most people stop drawing against dealers 2-6 face cards, and of course, he gets his cards to beat you.
I have seen these clumping theories. They are completely nonsense.
Most respectable casinos want cards to be as random as possible and would not deliberately put procedures in their shuffling to get the cards clumped.
I would agree that if a casino would delibaretely have shuffling procedures that gets cards clumped (high cards together and low cards together) that would increase their HE for people playing BS. BUT such clumping if existed and noticed by someone (and measured) could possibly be exploited by alternative basic strategies that take into account this. For that reason no serious casino would deliberately put procedures to reduce randomness.
Quote: luna34746Especially if I'm always having to his my 13, 14, 15, and 16's and when your 6 turns into 8, 9, or 10. And the one thing I cannot get used to is how often the dealer gets to 20 or 21 by turning over one low card after another. I'm not saying it didn't happen before, it did, but not nearly as frequently as it does today."
While I do not believe there is deliberate cheating by AC casinos, I have noticed that, when I first began playing about 5 years ago, I could play 6 hours in a day and stay within a standard deviation of even. However, in the past 18 months, I have noticed that I am usually busting on 12-16 whereas the dealer is making hands (i.e. I have seen dealers consistently make 21 from a 12…whether it be a 9 or a 2, Ace, Ace, 5)
I know casinos change shuffles from time to time—does anyone know why the change shuffles—there must be a science behind it (shouldn't each shuffle be random…?)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo amount of "clumping" is going to make you bust and the dealer not bust.
I never said it was card clumping - I was merely stating that things were consistent in the past - you could play for hours and hours and remain close to even - not the same anymore
Quote: aceofspadesI know casinos change shuffles from time to time—does anyone know why the change shuffles—there must be a science behind it (shouldn't each shuffle be random…?)
I would assume most shuffles change because of one of two reasons:
1) New management comes on board and they want to look like they are doing something
2) Management is worried about getting hit by shuffle trackers
Quote: aceofspadesI never said it was card clumping - I was merely stating that things were consistent in the past - you could play for hours and hours and remain close to even - not the same anymore
With all due respect ace (I know you play lots of blackjack so I don't take your observations lightly), I think you are seeing is probably within the range of expected outcomes and not due to any change in shuffling or procedure.
Quote: aceofspadesWhile I do not believe there is deliberate cheating by AC casinos, I have noticed that, when I first began playing about 5 years ago, I could play 6 hours in a day and stay within a standard deviation of even. However, in the past 18 months, I have noticed that I am usually busting on 12-16 whereas the dealer is making hands (i.e. I have seen dealers consistently make 21 from a 12…whether it be a 9 or a 2, Ace, Ace, 5)
I know casinos change shuffles from time to time—does anyone know why the change shuffles—there must be a science behind it (shouldn't each shuffle be random…?)
How many hours or hands in those 18 months? Your sample size may be too small and your results nothing out of the ordinary.
Quote: 1BBHow many hours or hands in those 18 months? Your sample size may be too small and your results nothing out of the ordinary.
Well let me restate this then…the 18 months are only at Revel - prior to that I consistently played at Bally's. At Bally's…my hours were consistently 4 o 6 hours a day. At Revel, I tried doing that and could not survive…thus my new method of hit and run.
Quote: aceofspadesWell let me restate this then…the 18 months are only at Revel - prior to that I consistently played at Bally's. At Bally's…my hours were consistently 4 o 6 hours a day. At Revel, I tried doing that and could not survive…thus my new method of hit and run.
Some of us keep records of our play. Give it a try if you haven't. It's easy and it could be interesting. It could even be fun!
Quote: aceofspadesI never said it was card clumping - I was merely stating that things were consistent in the past - you could play for hours and hours and remain close to even - not the same anymore
Unless if you actually kept careful records I would assume that there is some selective memory thing going on. Or, you may have just gotten extremely unlucky. Or, the casino may be cheating.
Quote: aceofspadesWell let me restate this then…the 18 months are only at Revel - prior to that I consistently played at Bally's. At Bally's…my hours were consistently 4 o 6 hours a day. At Revel, I tried doing that and could not survive…thus my new method of hit and run.
Are the rules the same? Is the game speed the same?
If the conditions are the same, and the results really are different, you may have just had some extremely bad luck. It happens. Just like someone occasionally wins a megabucks jackpot, someone occasionally has a streak of bad luck that is hundreds of millions to one against.
Blackjack without counting is also a negative game, and in the long run players will lose an amount close to their total action times the house edge of the game they play. For many "serious" basic strategy players like OP, this adds up fast.
Card clumping as a magical solution to the game having "changed" against the player is hogwash and just looking for an excuse as to why a player had a losing streak in a volatile, negative game.
Losing streaks happen even in positive games with less volatility. They're just a part of gambling.
If you want a game that will have your money "last for a while," I'd play a slower and less volatile game than blackjack.
Quote: aceofspadesWhile I do not believe there is deliberate cheating by AC casinos, I have noticed that, when I first began playing about 5 years ago, I could play 6 hours in a day and stay within a standard deviation of even. However, in the past 18 months, I have noticed that I am usually busting on 12-16 whereas the dealer is making hands (i.e. I have seen dealers consistently make 21 from a 12…whether it be a 9 or a 2, Ace, Ace, 5)
I know casinos change shuffles from time to time—does anyone know why the change shuffles—there must be a science behind it (shouldn't each shuffle be random…?)
I played 10 hours one night where the dealer never busted a 13, not once. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that I probably did not come out ahead. They change shuffles to keep themselves from being prime targets for shuffle tracking. By the time a tracker learns of an exploitable shuffle, maps it, and arranges to attack the game, they may have already changed the shuffle.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAre the rules the same? Is the game speed the same?
If the conditions are the same, and the results really are different, you may have just had some extremely bad luck. It happens. Just like someone occasionally wins a megabucks jackpot, someone occasionally has a streak of bad luck that is hundreds of millions to one against.
My perception is the speed of the game is the same (and yes, the rules are the same)
