Beginner's shuffle tracking

Recently, after a dealer had finished washing a brand new set of cards and opened a table up for play, I experienced something quite weird -- with three players at the table, not a SINGLE face card showed up for the whole first three rounds. The running count was 27 and there were about 5 decks left in the shoe. I upped my bets, and eventually, a string of high cards came along, but I was focusing on something else. After the shoe ended, the dealer (incorrectly) distributed the remaining cards toward the top of the discard tray, which meant that the enormous slug of baby cards was still stuck in the bottom of it.

He started shuffling, and I knew next to nothing about what I was doing, but I was fixated on that slug and when it was time to cut, I deliberately cut out what (I was pretty certain) included the majority of that slug. (BTW, we're talking about a 6-deck shoe).

I opened my bets at three units as opposed to conventional wisdom of betting just one. Sure enough, there was a pretty high density of face cards from the start, accumulating to a RC of -15 after about a deck was dealt out. I ended up actually losing a bunch of those bets, but that's because of the usual crappy statistical reality that even at high counts, you will be dealt stiff hands. Still, I was focused on the high density of face cards and kept track of it in the next shuffle. Again, the dealer kept the bottom of the discard tray untouched, and when I cut the cards again, this time I brought the high-density slug to the TOP of the shoe.

I opened once again at 3 units, and this time it worked like a charm. Many faces came out, and the RC was -15 or so again within a deck.

Needless to say, I cut the shoe again (I had to ask for the cut card and the other player gave it to me) and I tried to get that high slug back again. And it did, a third time! As time progressed, the cards definitely got more and more randomized even though I followed the same procedure; still, I was excited that I may have been onto something.

I am well aware that I may have just been lucky. In fact, I still think what happened was voodoo and much more testing needs to happen. The questions I have for y'all are:
1) If you believe you cut the shoe so that its bottom deck has many small cards, would you give yourself a biased starting RC?
2) How good do you think such a cut can be, and how many units are you willing to bet on the first round to capitalize if you're right?

Quote: arcticfun

Recently, after a dealer had finished washing a brand new set of cards and opened a table up for play, I experienced something quite weird -- with three players at the table, not a SINGLE face card showed up for the whole first three rounds. The running count was 27 and there were about 5 decks left in the shoe. I upped my bets, and eventually, a string of high cards came along, but I was focusing on something else. After the shoe ended, the dealer (incorrectly) distributed the remaining cards toward the top of the discard tray, which meant that the enormous slug of baby cards was still stuck in the bottom of it.

He started shuffling, and I knew next to nothing about what I was doing, but I was fixated on that slug and when it was time to cut, I deliberately cut out what (I was pretty certain) included the majority of that slug. (BTW, we're talking about a 6-deck shoe).

I opened my bets at three units as opposed to conventional wisdom of betting just one. Sure enough, there was a pretty high density of face cards from the start, accumulating to a RC of -15 after about a deck was dealt out. I ended up actually losing a bunch of those bets, but that's because of the usual crappy statistical reality that even at high counts, you will be dealt stiff hands. Still, I was focused on the high density of face cards and kept track of it in the next shuffle. Again, the dealer kept the bottom of the discard tray untouched, and when I cut the cards again, this time I brought the high-density slug to the TOP of the shoe.

I opened once again at 3 units, and this time it worked like a charm. Many faces came out, and the RC was -15 or so again within a deck.

Needless to say, I cut the shoe again (I had to ask for the cut card and the other player gave it to me) and I tried to get that high slug back again. And it did, a third time! As time progressed, the cards definitely got more and more randomized even though I followed the same procedure; still, I was excited that I may have been onto something.

I am well aware that I may have just been lucky. In fact, I still think what happened was voodoo and much more testing needs to happen. The questions I have for y'all are:
1) If you believe you cut the shoe so that its bottom deck has many small cards, would you give yourself a biased starting RC?
2) How good do you think such a cut can be, and how many units are you willing to bet on the first round to capitalize if you're right?

I'd suggest buying the shuffle tracker's cookbook. It's a good read.

Buy the cookbook.

I've just recently started learning ST, but by the looks of it, you played properly on-the-fly. That is, assuming, the shuffle is trackable.

Quote: arcticfun

Recently, after a dealer had finished washing a brand new set of cards and opened a table up for play, I experienced something quite weird -- with three players at the table, not a SINGLE face card showed up for the whole first three rounds. The running count was 27 and there were about 5 decks left in the shoe. I upped my bets, and eventually, a string of high cards came along, but I was focusing on something else. After the shoe ended, the dealer (incorrectly) distributed the remaining cards toward the top of the discard tray, which meant that the enormous slug of baby cards was still stuck in the bottom of it.

He started shuffling, and I knew next to nothing about what I was doing, but I was fixated on that slug and when it was time to cut, I deliberately cut out what (I was pretty certain) included the majority of that slug. (BTW, we're talking about a 6-deck shoe).

I opened my bets at three units as opposed to conventional wisdom of betting just one. Sure enough, there was a pretty high density of face cards from the start, accumulating to a RC of -15 after about a deck was dealt out. I ended up actually losing a bunch of those bets, but that's because of the usual crappy statistical reality that even at high counts, you will be dealt stiff hands. Still, I was focused on the high density of face cards and kept track of it in the next shuffle. Again, the dealer kept the bottom of the discard tray untouched, and when I cut the cards again, this time I brought the high-density slug to the TOP of the shoe.

I opened once again at 3 units, and this time it worked like a charm. Many faces came out, and the RC was -15 or so again within a deck.

Needless to say, I cut the shoe again (I had to ask for the cut card and the other player gave it to me) and I tried to get that high slug back again. And it did, a third time! As time progressed, the cards definitely got more and more randomized even though I followed the same procedure; still, I was excited that I may have been onto something.

I am well aware that I may have just been lucky. In fact, I still think what happened was voodoo and much more testing needs to happen. The questions I have for y'all are:
1) If you believe you cut the shoe so that its bottom deck has many small cards, would you give yourself a biased starting RC?
2) How good do you think such a cut can be, and how many units are you willing to bet on the first round to capitalize if you're right?

Hi Arcticfun,

Yes, You are onto something but not something new.

This is what I call Section tracking.

I use to do Ace tracking or Section tracking more then Counting, because tracking is more powerful then Counting (20+ years ago in UK).

I also use Section tracking with Ace tracking so I can get more Blackjack, because when I get my Ace it will come with a high card.

Yes, that's ST. I assume from your description it was a single pass shuffle (cards only shuffled once).
I have read the Cookboon and a few other stuff in the past and studied the formulas as well.
BUT, bottom line is the shuffle (single pass) your visual accuracy and not so the math.
If you can find a good shuffle and have good (no need to be excellent) visual skills, That is.

I have met a Pro (a long time ago) that had no idea of the ST math, and was playing at places where Pen was 3/6 where most people would say it is unplayable. But with ST he was hammering these places

Quote: AceTwo

Yes, that's ST. I assume from your description it was a single pass shuffle (cards only shuffled once).
I have read the Cookboon and a few other stuff in the past and studied the formulas as well.
BUT, bottom line is the shuffle (single pass) your visual accuracy and not so the math.
If you can find a good shuffle and have good (no need to be excellent) visual skills, That is.

I have met a Pro (a long time ago) that had no idea of the ST math, and was playing at places where Pen was 3/6 where most people would say it is unplayable. But with ST he was hammering these places

You can definitely make a LOT of money off of a weak shuffle.

You don't really need to know much math. Just cut the high cards to the top and bet big until you've used them up.

Where can you find this book? Pretty tough. Doesn't exist on amazon. On ebay some scam wants to sell it for 75 dollars. I bought professional blackjack for 5 dollars on amazon.

I got it here, $30
http://www.shoplva.com/products/blackjack-shuffle-trackers-cookbook-the

That's where I got it from.