card counting with an auto-shuffler
For example, say your standard bet is $20. You count all the cards on the table and it's roughly neutral, with a score between +3 and -3, so you just bet your standard amount. If you count all the cards and the score is +4 or better, increase the bet by $5, to $25. If the score is -4 or worse, decrease the bet by $5. And so on.
I have a gut feel that this would give some advantage, but don't have the math to back it up. Any thoughts?
Jeff
Quote: jpepperi play at the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh where they recently switched all the BJ tables to using auto-shuffling machines. So keeping a running count is pointless in the long run. However, I was wondering if there is a way to get some small advantage from counting the cards from a given hand and adjusting the bet based on that score.
For example, say your standard bet is $20. You count all the cards on the table and it's roughly neutral, with a score between +3 and -3, so you just bet your standard amount. If you count all the cards and the score is +4 or better, increase the bet by $5, to $25. If the score is -4 or worse, decrease the bet by $5. And so on.
I have a gut feel that this would give some advantage, but don't have the math to back it up. Any thoughts?
Jeff
I would only play vs. an autoshuffler with borrowed money that I never intended to repay, but my understanding is that the cards that were just used in a given hand are stuck back into the autoshuffler and mixed in with all the remaining cards before the next hand is dealt. In that case, counting those cards would be useless.
However, let's just say for the sake of argument that those cards were, in fact, excluded from the shuffle. Given a six-deck shoe, you would need a huge excess of low cards coming out before the true count would get high enough to make a difference; for example, to reach a true count of +2, you would need to see 16 low cards and only 4 high ones. So even in that (hypothetical?) case, you wouldn't see any real opportunities often enough to make the effort worthwhile.
Quote: mkl654321I would only play vs. an autoshuffler with borrowed money that I never intended to repay, but my understanding is that the cards that were just used in a given hand are stuck back into the autoshuffler and mixed in with all the remaining cards before the next hand is dealt. In that case, counting those cards would be useless.
However, let's just say for the sake of argument that those cards were, in fact, excluded from the shuffle. Given a six-deck shoe, you would need a huge excess of low cards coming out before the true count would get high enough to make a difference; for example, to reach a true count of +2, you would need to see 16 low cards and only 4 high ones. So even in that (hypothetical?) case, you wouldn't see any real opportunities often enough to make the effort worthwhile.
I agree from the standpoint of bet variation that counting a CSM-dealt table provides no value. I do think that some variations of play can still come up with CSMs. For example, the hit/stand decision on 16 versus a 10 can be aided by evaluating the cards on the table.
Quote: rdw4potusI agree from the standpoint of bet variation that counting a CSM-dealt table provides no value. I do think that some variations of play can still come up with CSMs. For example, the hit/stand decision on 16 versus a 10 can be aided by evaluating the cards on the table.
Agreed. You could also presumably see a whole bunch of 8s and 9s come out and alter your decision to hit 12 vs. a 2--stuff like that. I doubt that the incremental gain would be very much--most such strategy adjustments are made at a true count of at least -1 or +1, which would take an excess of six small/large cards coming out before you made (and, presumably altered) your decision.
Quote: mkl654321I would only play vs. an autoshuffler with borrowed money that I never intended to repay, but my understanding is that the cards that were just used in a given hand are stuck back into the autoshuffler and mixed in with all the remaining cards before the next hand is dealt. In that case, counting those cards would be useless.
However, let's just say for the sake of argument that those cards were, in fact, excluded from the shuffle.
The CSMs actually deal in "chunks". Where the cards are dealt from, there are usually around 20 cards. When a certain number of cards are removed another chunk backs it up. When the cards are put back into the machine, they are placed one by one into a wheel in the innards of the machine that spins around and accepts one card at a time into the holders on the wheel that is spinning around due to some sort of randomisation I dont understand. So ends my limited understanding of the workings of CSMs.
