Blackjack - Casinos using shuffle machines to cheat...?

By the way, the way to confirm this is of course to count blackjacks seen. If you aren't seeing a blackjack for either player or dealer about 5% of the time, OVER A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE SIZE, something may be up.

But probably before you even become suspicious of the less frequent BJ's, you will likely notice the increase in soft hands you get. A4, A5, A7, A2. Everything but A-10 value.

Quote: kewlj

By the way, the way to confirm this is of course to count blackjacks seen. If you aren't seeing a blackjack for either player or dealer about 5% of the time, OVER A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE SIZE, something may be up.

But probably before you even become suspicious of the less frequent BJ's, you will likely notice the increase in soft hands you get. A4, A5, A7, A2. Everything but A-10 value.
link to original post

I once played a session for hours without getting a Blackjack. I told myself that I am not leaving until I get one. It felt like 2 million hands before I got one (would that be rarer than 18 yo's in a row?)

Here is my thought process:
If you are counting, it is encourage to bet less as the count grows more negative. Psychologically, at the beginning of the shoe I might be discouraged as the count drops knowing the small cards are coming. The difficulty comes from not knowing how long the big cards will continue to drop making it less reliable, compared to a very possitive count.

If we knew that big cards would continue to drop up to a certain point near the front of the deck we would use that to our advantage. We really can only hope to discover a high count in the second half of the shoe.

Because of the randomness of players the casino can not control every hand, but might be able to keep the count low to negative to keep a counter's bet in check, i.e. let them win some flat bets to keep them from winning bigger bets from a high count.

It does make sense less clumping of ace/ten means less blackjack, losing the 3:2 payouts

Getting 18 yo's in a row has roughly the same probability as 1070 consecutive blackjack hands w/o getting a blackjack.

That makes it sound possible, in a negative way.

Quote: DRich

I once played a session for hours without getting a Blackjack. I told myself that I am not leaving until I get one. It felt like 2 million hands before I got one (would that be rarer than 18 yo's in a row?)
link to original post

I figure that 2 million hands would take around 16 months at reasonable game tempo.
I would find sitting at a blackjack table for that long... unlikely.
Time flies when you're having fun.

I think I made a thread about this but I once had an

8 card 20 mostly consisting of aces

And then

3 blackjacks in a row that I won followed by another blackjack that pushed with the dealer

I also walked up to a random table the other day and put two bets down on two spots and got blackjack on each of them

I walked away after that because the cage is physically located to the left of that particular blackjack table about ten feet so it’s was easy

I reckon from simulation an 8+-card hand is about 1 in 55691, even rarer than throwing six 6s!

I had that once. Kept resplitting them until I couldn't respite any more. Had 4 hands in front of me then 2 more sixes came out which I couldn't split. I made money on that hand,but will never forget that

Quote: teliot

Getting 18 yo's in a row has roughly the same probability as 1070 consecutive blackjack hands w/o getting a blackjack.
link to original post

What is the probability of not getting a blackjack? One hand.

Quote: DeMango

Quote: teliot

Getting 18 yo's in a row has roughly the same probability as 1070 consecutive blackjack hands w/o getting a blackjack.
link to original post

What is the probability of not getting a blackjack? One hand.
link to original post

From an eight-deck shoe, it's

1 - 2 (32/416) (128/415) = 5139 / 5395

If you get a BJ approx. once every 23 hands, isn't the probability of not getting one 22/23?

Asking for a math-challenged friend.