Streaks - Selective memory or shuffling?
July 25th, 2016 at 5:13:33 PM
permalink
My impression is that streaks of good hands or bad hands cross over a shoe or a shuffle. I mean that when it's good, it's often good for more than one shoe, and when it's bad, it can be very bad, for more than one shoe.
Is that just selective memory, or does an accumulation of cards tend to stay together through a shuffle, assuming a hand-shuffle, according to the established procedure, by a dealer who follows it?
I have tried to watch, or imagine in my mind, how the cards get resorted in a "standard shuffle" that does not involve "washing" <?> them: divide into two stacks, shuffle, repeat, and so on. But it's too confusing for me. But, I read the term "shuffle tracking" and know that there are programs out there that can simulate "perfect" shuffling that can predict how many passes of such a thing can exactly reorder a deck into its original state. I think I could even write such a program.
But no dealer will shuffle the cards exactly the same way, and I assume the variability of dealers and their exactness when they do it insures that the deck is truly reordered into enough of a random manner that while the next shoe might seem to be like the last one - good or bad - if it is, it's just a matter of pure chance.
So you mathematicians, shuffle tracking specialists and conspiracy theorists - do the cards truly get shuffled after every shoe?
Is that just selective memory, or does an accumulation of cards tend to stay together through a shuffle, assuming a hand-shuffle, according to the established procedure, by a dealer who follows it?
I have tried to watch, or imagine in my mind, how the cards get resorted in a "standard shuffle" that does not involve "washing" <?> them: divide into two stacks, shuffle, repeat, and so on. But it's too confusing for me. But, I read the term "shuffle tracking" and know that there are programs out there that can simulate "perfect" shuffling that can predict how many passes of such a thing can exactly reorder a deck into its original state. I think I could even write such a program.
But no dealer will shuffle the cards exactly the same way, and I assume the variability of dealers and their exactness when they do it insures that the deck is truly reordered into enough of a random manner that while the next shoe might seem to be like the last one - good or bad - if it is, it's just a matter of pure chance.
So you mathematicians, shuffle tracking specialists and conspiracy theorists - do the cards truly get shuffled after every shoe?
July 26th, 2016 at 8:57:21 AM
permalink
Assuming a single deck, and perfect riffles, it takes 26 riffles to reverse the sequence, and 26 more to restore it.
Note that this assumes a perfect riffle turns a sequence of 1,2,3,4 ... 49,50,51,52 into 27,1,28,2 ... 51,25,52,26.
Also note that it takes a TON of practice to do perfect riffles.
Normal dealing and shuffling procedures sufficiently randomize the cards.
Bottom line: You've got selective memory.
Note that this assumes a perfect riffle turns a sequence of 1,2,3,4 ... 49,50,51,52 into 27,1,28,2 ... 51,25,52,26.
Also note that it takes a TON of practice to do perfect riffles.
Normal dealing and shuffling procedures sufficiently randomize the cards.
Bottom line: You've got selective memory.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 28th, 2016 at 4:31:28 PM
permalink
I figured as much.
I've been tempted to take six decks of cards, number each card in the stack from 1-312, and then simulate a standard shuffle as I see them do at the table, then examine the result to see how the cards move around. Or as a programming exercise try to write some array-manipulating code to do it without the use of cards. For...next loops within loops within loops.
Even if there were some predictability to it, the high and low cards are distributed in some random sequence already.
Selective memory. Doesn't work as well as it did in the good old days, I'll say that for it.
I've been tempted to take six decks of cards, number each card in the stack from 1-312, and then simulate a standard shuffle as I see them do at the table, then examine the result to see how the cards move around. Or as a programming exercise try to write some array-manipulating code to do it without the use of cards. For...next loops within loops within loops.
Even if there were some predictability to it, the high and low cards are distributed in some random sequence already.
Selective memory. Doesn't work as well as it did in the good old days, I'll say that for it.
