I was told it is called short decking
November 9th, 2010 at 6:57:19 AM
permalink
I was at my favorite casino playing BJ, single deck, 3:2. One other player and the house. After 12 cards were dealt with a lose both times for the house, the dealer shuffled. I did not notice. Another couple of hands and she shuffled again. I asked why she was shuffling so much and she said she did not want to run out of cards. What! I left. I asked a pit boss at another casino and he said it is called short decking to give the house a supposed 3% advantage on a new deal. I went back to that casino to eat and talked to an older dealer, he said it is their new policy to shuffle after two deals no matter how many cards are out. Does this make sense? Needless to say I do not play there anymore, it is up in Northern NV.
Last Man at the Table
November 9th, 2010 at 7:09:05 AM
permalink
If they always shuffle after two hands, there's no problem. At a full table, two hands would get sufficiently through a single deck that you might need to anyway. However, if the casino is counting cards and shuffling early on bad counts (for them) then you would be at a greater disadvantage than normal. Chances are that's not what is happening, though. The "shuffle after two hands" policy wouldn't give anyone an advantage any more than shuffling after every hand would.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 9th, 2010 at 7:15:29 AM
permalink
I guess I am confused. Why did they start this policy if it has no advantage to anyone? I understand a full table after two deals might run out of cards. But a table with two players?
Last Man at the Table
November 9th, 2010 at 7:36:47 AM
permalink
It doesn't make sense to me to have a strict policy of shuffling after two rounds with a small number of players. It would seem outright silly with just one. The dealer would waste much too much time shuffling. Also, the cut' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>https://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix10.html]cut card effect works in the dealer's favor. The house would gain 0.11% by waiting until the cut card comes out to shuffle. I think the Barona has a good single-deck policy. If I remember correctly it is:
5-6 players: two rounds.
4 players: three rounds.
1-2 players: no actual cut card, but shuffle at about the 50% point.
5-6 players: two rounds.
4 players: three rounds.
1-2 players: no actual cut card, but shuffle at about the 50% point.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 9th, 2010 at 7:41:25 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 9th, 2010 at 8:16:24 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardAlso, the cut' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>https://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix10.html]cut card effect works in the dealer's favor. The house would gain 0.11% by waiting until the cut card comes out to shuffle.
I'd be interested in hearing how you explain this effect. I mean, it would seem that it should not matter, because, if the shuffle is uniform, each sequence is equally probable, so the second hand that's played with cut card is as likely to be the first hand after a fresh shuffle ...
What's wrong with this reasoning?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
November 9th, 2010 at 8:45:34 AM
permalink
The reasoning goes like this: a bad shuffle for the player has fewer cards/hand than a good shuffle. Therefore, if you always deal to a specific # cards, in a good deck you'll have fewer overall hands than in a bad deck, and therefore more overall bad hands than would otherwise happen.
If you always deal the same number of hands per deck, it doesn't manifest itself.
If you always deal the same number of hands per deck, it doesn't manifest itself.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 9th, 2010 at 8:53:45 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThe reasoning goes like this: a bad shuffle for the player has fewer cards/hand than a good shuffle.
Isn't it the other way around? Bad shuffle is a lot of small cards, meaning more hitting compared to a "good shuffle" where there are a lot of two-card hands, no?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
November 9th, 2010 at 9:01:06 AM
permalink
I like to think I can understand some basic concepts but I am now even more confused. All I know is they started doing this two deal frequent shuffle and it has ruined the game at that casino. It seems like all they do is shuffle. This same casino also installed a fast material craps cloth(makes dice bounce high and fast), banned setting, no lofting of dice, and requires the dice be thrown within 2 seconds of touching them, lowered max payout to $1500. Needless to say I don't gamble there anymore.
Last Man at the Table
November 9th, 2010 at 9:22:22 AM
permalink
Feel free to name the casino, likeplaying. No need to protect the bad stores; let them have the negative press. The two rounds rule is pretty ridiculous. I wouldn't do that unless there were four or more players. Gold Strike in Tunica had a rule like that -- it was less than Rule of Six, but not as restrictive as two rounds only. I can't really help or hurt the basic strategy player; it will only cause you to lose money slower, which is good. Of course counting is useless.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
November 9th, 2010 at 9:31:08 AM
permalink
I dealt single deck last night at my casino after my Pai Gow table closed.
I had a single player for about an hour, a regular who doesn't count, and I dealt 7 or 8 rounds per shuffle, otherwise the maximum is five hands out. One baffoon floorman did complain about it, and I stuck with 5 hands/shuffle; the player did better.
I had a single player for about an hour, a regular who doesn't count, and I dealt 7 or 8 rounds per shuffle, otherwise the maximum is five hands out. One baffoon floorman did complain about it, and I stuck with 5 hands/shuffle; the player did better.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:32:59 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI think the Barona has a good single-deck policy. If I remember correctly it is:
5-6 players: two rounds.
4 players: three rounds.
1-2 players: no actual cut card, but shuffle at about the 50% point.
Precisely. If you remember correctly. The Barona dealers can probably remember it correctly.
Some casinos have dealers to whom it might be a challenge and perhaps they initiate a policy applicable to full as well as virtually empty tables. Quite frankly, I think the casino bosses should be asked two questions. The first is What Is The House Edge In Blackjack? The second is: What Happens To That House Edge While The Dealer Is Shuffling?
November 9th, 2010 at 9:45:14 AM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanIsn't it the other way around? Bad shuffle is a lot of small cards, meaning more hitting compared to a "good shuffle" where there are a lot of two-card hands, no?
Maybe I said it poorly -- let's say you always get a minimum of X hands out of a shoe. If you always shuffled after those X hands, there'd be no effect. But sometimes after X hands you haven't reached the cut-card yet, so you keep going and play an extra Y hands. Those Y hands will be dealt out of a partial shoe that is 10-poor (i.e. with an unfavorable count), because the only way you got through the X hands so fast is that the big cards already came out. So you only deal the Y hands when the deck is bad. That's the cut-card effect.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
