Is cut card position THAT important?

Recently I read an article that card counting was not that useful:
"Advanced advantage players know that ordinary blackjack card counting is a waste of time."

Would there be a big difference against card counting in the position of the cut card used to shuffle in Baccarat and Blackjack?

Say, in the European No-hole card variant for blackjack, with an 8deck shoe, dealer stands on all 17s, double after split allowed, may split only once, and split aces receive one card, what is the difference from cutting an 8 deck shoe at 25%, 50% or 75%?

What about Baccarat, same 8deck shoe?

Are there casinos live, online or landbase that cut the shoe at 25%?

Quote: LMyztik

Recently I read an article that card counting was not that useful:
"Advanced advantage players know that ordinary blackjack card counting is a waste of time."
http://apheat.net/2013/12/12/the-worlds-greatest-blackjack-card-counter/

Yes, that article would make a very good point if you could only bet $100 per hand. Luckily for counters, blackjack is available with large limits, so a relatively small edge can turn into a lot of profit. Half (or even a third of) a max bet per hour sounds pretty good when you can bet thousands.

Quote:

Would there be a big difference against card counting in the position of the cut card used to shuffle in Baccarat and Blackjack?

What does this have to do with baccarat?

Quote:

Say, in the European No-hole card variant for blackjack, with an 8deck shoe, dealer stands on all 17s, double after split allowed, may split only once, and split aces receive one card, what is the difference from cutting an 8 deck shoe at 25%, 50% or 75%?

The difference is massive. Penetration is everything.

Quote:

What about Baccarat, same 8deck shoe?

Trying to count cards at baccarat is a waste of time. The effect of removal of cards is too small. You almost never have an edge.

Quote:

Are there casinos live, online or landbase that cut the shoe at 25%?

You can get much better pen than that.

What you're referring to is commonly referred to as Penetration, or PEN. PEN is probably the most important factor in a game of blackjack for a card counter. The difference in PEN will fluctuate how often you see a dramatic rise, or fall, of the running count, and thus will effect how often you have an 'advantage' and get to bet more. Thus, when you have very little penetration, you won't see as many advantageous situations.

Example
Say you have 8 decks. If you cut OUT 7 decks, meaning you only get to play 1 deck... the MAXIMUM the running count could go is +52. This is of course very improbable as every single card in the first 52 would have to be a 2-6 (hi/low count).

Now in the same turn, say you cut OUT 4 decks, meaning you play the first 4 decks... the MAXIMUM the running count could go is +160. This assumes of the 4 decks (208 cards) that the other 48 cards are 7 though 9. Again, completely improbable, but this is to make a point.

The more decks you deal, the more often you'll see fluctuations in the running count (both up and down). A counter wants this because they are targeting the higher end of the fluctuations where they bet more. Thus, to reiterate, you don't get as many advantageous situations with less PEN.

Quote: LMyztik

Are there casinos live, online or landbase that cut the shoe at 25%?

I was playing a 2 deck game last night. I think the dealer misunderstood house policy, and was cutting about half a deck off (75% pen), instead of cutting the deck in half (50%).

It was literally just sitting back and collecting the money. Left with 5x my buy in. Wish I had more money with me and time to spend at the table; was just carrying some small pocket money so I only bought in at 5x table min after less than an hour.

Quote: LMyztik

what is the difference from cutting an 8 deck shoe at 25%, 50% or 75%?

If the good cards are behind the shuffle card, you don't get to play them. If the good cards are in front of the shuffle card, you can leave after they're played out.

The shallower the penetration (50%, 25%), the more good cards there are trapped where they'll never be seen. The deeper the penetration (75%, 85%, 90%), the better chances of getting to the good cards.

Quote: Dieter

I was playing a 2 deck game last night. I think the dealer misunderstood house policy, and was cutting about half a deck off (75% pen), instead of cutting the deck in half (50%).

It was literally just sitting back and collecting the money. Left with 5x my buy in. Wish I had more money with me and time to spend at the table; was just carrying some small pocket money so I only bought in at 5x table min after less than an hour.

How can you count with only a 5x table min buy-in?

Quote:

If the good cards are behind the shuffle card, you don't get to play them. If the good cards are in front of the shuffle card, you can leave after they're played out.

The shallower the penetration (50%, 25%), the more good cards there are trapped where they'll never be seen. The deeper the penetration (75%, 85%, 90%), the better chances of getting to the good cards.

That's not quite right. Your edge is essentially proportional to the concentration of good cards left in the deck. It's obviously easier to get a higher concentration of good cards with fewer cards left.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

How can you count with only a 5x table min buy-in?

Hail mary & bathroom breaks. It greatly helped that I didn't lose a single hand the first shoe.

I found myself there not to play, but to eat dinner. Walked by, saw an opportunity, and made a few bucks. The goal was not to crush, but to peacefully spend some time flat betting table minimum while I digested, before getting in the car for the drive back.

I think I did eventually bump my flat bet up from $5 to $10 at some point. I was feeling lucky.

Quote: Dieter

Hail mary & bathroom breaks. It greatly helped that I didn't lose a single hand the first shoe.

I found myself there not to play, but to eat dinner. Walked by, saw an opportunity, and made a few bucks. The goal was not to crush, but to peacefully spend some time flat betting table minimum while I digested, before getting in the car for the drive back.

I think I did eventually bump my flat bet up from $5 to $10 at some point. I was feeling lucky.

If you were flat betting, the fact that the dealer dealt 75% instead of 50% is completely irrelevant to you.

Your post is very confusing.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

If you were flat betting, the fact that the dealer dealt 75% instead of 50% is completely irrelevant to you.

Your post is very confusing.

I have no idea what Dieter is getting at, either.

That's what u 2 get for not having fail-safe Bac system.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

If you were flat betting, the fact that the dealer dealt 75% instead of 50% is completely irrelevant to you

Spreading 0-1 is effective. I still consider that flat betting, since I'm not raising my bet.

Hitting rather than doubling at unfavorable moments is still effective, even with a minimum bet.

My understanding of the cut-card effect is that shallower favors the house, and deeper is better for the player - even with flat betting & straight BS play.

I fully acknowledge that I caught a favorable run of cards. My subjective observation is that it happens much more often with a deeper shuffle point.

Quote: Dieter

My understanding of the cut-card effect is that shallower favors the house, and deeper is better for the player - even with flat betting & straight BS play.

As I mentioned above, this is because the less decks that are played, the less variance there is in the running count, and thus the less advantageous situations counters will find to take advantage of. Thus, this wouldn't favor a player playing strictly BS or flat betting (unless their wonging IN on positive counts). This only effects counters.

Also, the less 'accurate' the RC/TC are. If there's 5 decks left and you have a RC +10, you could still just easily pull a small card from the swarm of cards remaining in the 5 decks. Now if there's 1 deck left and RC +10, it becomes much more likely (although still not a sure thing) that you'll draw a big card. This is obviously taken in to account for with the TC conversion, thus my first point above is probably more important, but I wanted to at least mention this I guess.

Quote: Dieter

Spreading 0-1 is effective. I still consider that flat betting, since I'm not raising my bet.

That is not flat betting. Were you really sitting out unfavorable counts? If so, that is the opposite of flat betting -- you are jump spreading from your min (0) to your max (1).

Quote:

Hitting rather than doubling at unfavorable moments is still effective, even with a minimum bet.

This is not close to enough to beat the game. It's almost insignificant. Was that the only strategy change that you were making?

Quote:

My understanding of the cut-card effect is that shallower favors the house, and deeper is better for the player - even with flat betting & straight BS play.

That is incorrect. In fact, the best situation for the basic strategy player is if the cut card is so shallow that they always shuffle after every hand, since that eliminates the cut card effect.

Quote:

I fully acknowledge that I caught a favorable run of cards. My subjective observation is that it happens much more often with a deeper shuffle point.

That observation is definitely wrong. It's almost certainly selective memory.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is not flat betting. Were you really sitting out unfavorable counts?

Fair enough, we can call that a terminology difference. I left the game a few times, and then re-entered at the next shuffle (house rule on MSE).

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

This is not close to enough to beat the game. It's almost insignificant. Was that the only strategy change that you were making?

Agreed, it's not close enough to beat the game consistently. No, that was not the only deviation.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That is incorrect. In fact, the best situation for the basic strategy player is if the cut card is so shallow that they always shuffle after every hand

I disagree. That's the best situation for the house, since actual results will closely approach the house edge (less losses due to bad play). Even basic players don't usually want to lose slowly and consistently.

Most of the basic players I encounter want to have a "nice little run", and then leave the game. My understanding is that's the right way to play a -EV game, to enjoy the variance and stop before expectation catches up. Again, selective memory, but that seems hard to do when the house shuffles after every hand.

Quote: Dieter

I disagree. That's the best situation for the house, since actual results will closely approach the house edge (less losses due to bad play). Even basic players don't usually want to lose slowly and consistently.

Most of the basic players I encounter want to have a "nice little run", and then leave the game. My understanding is that's the right way to play a -EV game, to enjoy the variance and stop before expectation catches up. Again, selective memory, but that seems hard to do when the house shuffles after every hand.

The house shuffling every hand does not reduce your chances of winning multiple hands in a row. It actually increases it (insignificantly), since hand results in the same shoe are (insignificantly) negatively correlated. The effect is the exact opposite of what you are claiming -- you are actually (insignificantly) more likely to have a "nice little run" if they shuffle every hand.

If the house shuffles after every round, there is no cut card effect, which reduces the house edge. This is good for the (non-counting) player. It obviously slows the game down a lot, though. A similar effect can be achieved with a CSM (it can also be achieved by dealing a fixed number of rounds, greater than 1, between shuffles. This is how a lot of single-deck games are dealt)

I'm not sure why you think that shuffling after every round causes results to approach expectation more quickly, but it's certainly not true. There are no lucky or unlucky shoes.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'm not sure why you think that shuffling after every round causes results to approach expectation more quickly, but it's certainly not true.

I apparently have some studying to do. Kindly suggest a book or article?

Quote: Dieter

I apparently have some studying to do. Kindly suggest a book or article?

I'm not sure where you'd find that particular fact.

I'm trying to think of a good book to suggest. Burning the Tables (my favorite blackjack book) is not really applicable here. Although, I think everyone should read it.

Maybe Theory of Blackjack? I'd also suggest Blackjack Attack, but the typesetting in that book is so horrible that I find it extremely difficult to read. Great author (Don S); great collection of works, but horribly published.

Anyone using the Wizard of Odds blackjack house edge calculator will see that there are two numbers, one with a cut card and one without. Without is lower.

Quote: 1BB

Anyone using the Wizard of Odds blackjack house edge calculator will see that there are two numbers, one with a cut card and one without. Without is lower.

The optimal numbers also assume composition-dependent basic strategy.

' My understanding of the cut-card effect is that shallower favors the house, and deeper is better for the player - even with flat betting & straight BS play. "

If you are flat betting and straight BS play you will lose less per hours played in a shallower cut card !

Quote: Buzzard

' My understanding of the cut-card effect is that shallower favors the house, and deeper is better for the player - even with flat betting & straight BS play. "

If you are flat betting and straight BS play you will lose less per hours played in a shallower cut card !

Also if you have a smaller bladder.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Also if you have a smaller bladder.

At some of the places I go, with infrequent beverage service, I can artificially decrease the size of my bladder by periodically interrupting play both to drain the bladder and get another drink.