trouble understanding the Wizard's appendix 10 answer to the question.

My question is regarding the Wizard's Q&A regarding CSMs which turn out to reduce house edge compared to a cut card game at https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/10/. I was re-reading this page out of curiosity and what I don't understand is that when the cards are shuffled whether it be for a cut-card game in a shoe for example versus continuously shuffled in a CSM, isn't randomness still randomness? I'm referring to the Wizard's sentences that say "note how the distribution is weighted towards large cards in the CSM game as opposed to the even distribution in the cut card game" and "I have been asked if more small cards come out in a cut card game when can they be expected to appear. There is no particular time. The last hand in a cut card has just about the same odds as the overall shoe. 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. This is because in the early hands the players and dealer didn't hit much, which in turn is because lots of large cards came out, leaving more small cards for later in the shoe." Couldn't these events happen in reverse and benefit the player as well? I hope my question is making some sense. Thanks for all your help.

If I'm reading the question right... The CSM has a greater variance because you're playing with a fresh shuffle each time. The odds of drawing a certain card in a shoe increase as other cards are drawn and thusly self-balancing. Taken to an extreme, you'll see a dramatic shift in the results of what's drawn if you draw one card off a single deck and shuffle it as opposed to drawing 52 cards and shuffling. Alternatively: Assuming the constraints make it possible, you can draw an infinite series of tens (or any other value) with a CSM, however unlikely. A 6D shoe could only draw 96, assuming the cut card was deep enough.

The second question... Yes. That's the principle of counting. However, the question was addressed towards small cards specifically, and answered regarding small cards.

Quote: Venthus

If I'm reading the question right... The CSM has a greater variance because you're playing with a fresh shuffle each time. The odds of drawing a certain card in a shoe increase as other cards are drawn and thusly self-balancing. Taken to an extreme, you'll see a dramatic shift in the results of what's drawn if you draw one card off a single deck and shuffle it as opposed to drawing 52 cards and shuffling. Alternatively: Assuming the constraints make it possible, you can draw an infinite series of tens (or any other value) with a CSM, however unlikely. A 6D shoe could only draw 96, assuming the cut card was deep enough.

The second question... Yes. That's the principle of counting. However, the question was addressed towards small cards specifically, and answered regarding small cards.

I don't think this has anything to do with variance, only the house edge slightly changing.

Thank you Venthus. That makes sense as to why House Edge would decrease a bit.