Shuffling Question

I think a useful column to add to the Wizard's blackjack survey might be a colunm entitled "Type of Shuffle." I've been doing some reading on the topic, and, man, there is some heavy math involved in studying the randomness vs nonrandomness of shuffling. Anyway, can anyone offer me some input about which casinos might still offer a human-dealt game rather than using a CSM, etc.? (I suppose some big factors dictating which method the casino chooses to use are time of day and day of the week.). Any feedback regarding casinos that offer human dealt games would be appreciated.

Quote: StevenBlack

Any feedback regarding casinos that offer human dealt games would be appreciated.

Don't you mean human shuffled game?

For what it's worth, there has been discussions here that include comments indicating that a continuous shuffler is actually better for the player. I don't recall why....

Yes, I'm sorry - I mean human shuffled.

Thanks for the feedback. But let's say that I am an old school player who really likes the human shuffled game. Can anyone offer suggestions as to what casinos tend to offer the human shuffled game nowadays? Thank you.

Last time I was at Caesars (Dec 2010), everything was hand shuffled. I commented on it and dealer basically said it was because that is what "old school players" want. So maybe that would work for you. For me it is nice, I can make it to bathroom and back in time it takes them to do 6 deck shuffle...not quite the same "advantage" you might be talking about, but I take what I can get.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Don't you mean human shuffled game?

For what it's worth, there has been discussions here that include comments indicating that a continuous shuffler is actually better for the player. I don't recall why....

I wouldn't say it's better, because the game moves faster (more hands per hour due to the absence of shuffling). however, the house edge is lower because of the "cut card effect". that is, with a cut card there tends to be more hands when low cards are cut off and do not come into play, because the higher cards dealt out produce more hands with less cards. And because high card are to the player's advantage, house edge for the accumulative shoe tends to be lower.

K

Quote: Kelmo

I wouldn't say it's better, because the game moves faster (more hands per hour due to the absence of shuffling). however, the house edge is lower because of the "cut card effect". that is, with a cut card there tends to be more hands when low cards are cut off and do not come into play, because the higher cards dealt out produce more hands with less cards. And because high card are to the player's advantage, house edge for the accumulative shoe tends to be lower.

I think you are on track but have something backwards. It seems that you were saying that if the small cards tended to be behind the cut card, then there would be more hands played with high cards which are to the player's advantage, giving a lower house edge with the shoe. Not true.

One way of looking at it is this: For upcoming hands, it is to the player's advantage to have disproportionately more small cards already played and in the discard stack. That leads to a favorable count -- whether you are counting the cards or not -- and the dealer is more likely to bust. But while those small cards are coming out earlier than normal, you wind up getting fewer hands dealt before reaching the cut card. On the other hand, if the high cards are coming out disproportionately early, the count tends to be disadvantageous, plus you wind up playing more hands at a disadvantage before reaching the cut card. This is a natural bias from a shoe game that tends to increase the house's advantage.

With a continuous shuffling machine, both small and large cards go immediately back in the "available" category, so the edge is always the same as for a newly-shuffled deck, without the bias.

You are correct that the benefit of the CSM tends to be lost because more hands (usually at a house advantage) are played per hour because there is no delay for shuffling.

Quote: Doc

I think you are on track but have something backwards. It seems that you were saying that if the small cards tended to be behind the cut card, then there would be more hands played with high cards which are to the player's advantage, giving a lower house edge with the shoe. Not true.

One way of looking at it is this: For upcoming hands, it is to the player's advantage to have disproportionately more small cards already played and in the discard stack. That leads to a favorable count -- whether you are counting the cards or not -- and the dealer is more likely to bust. But while those small cards are coming out earlier than normal, you wind up getting fewer hands dealt before reaching the cut card. On the other hand, if the high cards are coming out disproportionately early, the count tends to be disadvantageous, plus you wind up playing more hands at a disadvantage before reaching the cut card. This is a natural bias from a shoe game that tends to increase the house's advantage.

With a continuous shuffling machine, both small and large cards go immediately back in the "available" category, so the edge is always the same as for a newly-shuffled deck, without the bias.

You are correct that the benefit of the CSM tends to be lost because more hands (usually at a house advantage) are played per hour because there is no delay for shuffling.

Actually, no. I meant what i said, nothing to do with card counting. It is to the player's advantage to have the smaller cards behind the cut card so they never come into play. if they are in the discard rack, the players has already played at a higher discadvantage. You're talking about a taking advantage of a count, while i'm talking about the cut card effect (both based on the effects of removal, but not the same thing). with all respect, I think you have it backwards. :)

i don't know if this will come out correctly, but just for a simple example. consider a deck that is only comprised of 12 cards (6 X 5's and 6 X 10's) and that 2 cards are cut off. For the intital player and dealer hand, there are combin(10,2) * combin(8,2) = 1260 possible starting hands. Below are two scenarios: 2 X 5's cut off and 2 X 10's cut off. As you can see, more initial cards are drawn when 2 X 10's are cut off. This means there would be fewer hands (not cards) dealt with low cards in play. When 2 X 5's are cut off, there are less cards drawn, which means there would be more hands dealt with high cards.

This is a simplification, but shows the point of the "cut card effect".

2 X 5's Cut off
Player
Dealer 20 15 10
20 90 240 90
15 240 360 72
10 90 72 6

Cards Drawn
Both Stand 90 0
1 Draw 660 660
2 Draw 510 1020
Total 1260 1680


2 X 10's Cut off
Player
Dealer 20 15 10
20 6 72 90
15 72 360 240
10 90 240 90

Cards Drawn
Both Stand 6 0
1 Draw 324 324
2 Draw 930 1860
Total 1260 2184

i don't know if this will come out correctly, but just for a simple example. consider a deck that is only comprised of 12 cards (6 X 5's and 6 X 10's) and that 2 cards are cut off. For the intital player and dealer hand, there are combin(10,2) * combin(8,2) = 1260 possible starting hands. Below are two scenarios: 2 X 5's cut off and 2 X 10's cut off. As you can see, more initial cards are drawn when 2 X 10's are cut off. This means there would be fewer hands (not cards) dealt with low cards in play. When 2 X 5's are cut off, there are less cards drawn, which means there would be more hands dealt with high cards.

This is a simplification, but shows the point of the "cut card effect".

2 X 5's Cut off
Player
Dealer 20 15 10
20 90 240 90
15 240 360 72
10 90 72 6
Cards Drawn
Both Stand 90 0
1 Draw 660 660
2 Draw 510 1020
Total 1260 1680


2 X 10's Cut off
Player
Dealer 20 15 10
20 6 72 90
15 72 360 240
10 90 240 90
Cards Drawn
Both Stand 6 0
1 Draw 324 324
2 Draw 930 1860
Total 1260 2184


Note: didn't format from the spreadsheet. Too bad.

I formatted it for you. At least I THINK this is what you meant...

2 X 5's Cut off
	Player
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	90	240	90
	15	240	360	72
	10	90	72	6
				Cards Drawn
	Both Stand	90		0
	1 Draw	660		660
	2 Draw	510		1020
	Total	1260		1680
2 X 10's Cut off
	Player
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	6	72	90
	15	72	360	240
	10	90	240	90
				Cards Drawn
	Both Stand	6		0
	1 Draw	324		324
	2 Draw	930		1860
	Total	1260		2184

If htat's too much trouble, just use a CODE box:


FYI: When posting, there's a link below the, Click here for formatting codes where the ocdes to do this and other stuff are explained.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I formatted it for you. At least I THINK this is what you meant...

2 X 5's Cut off
	Player
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	90	240	90
	15	240	360	72
	10	90	72	6
				Cards Drawn
	Both Stand	90		0
	1 Draw	660		660
	2 Draw	510		1020
	Total	1260		1680
2 X 10's Cut off
	Player
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	6	72	90
	15	72	360	240
	10	90	240	90
				Cards Drawn
	Both Stand	6		0
	1 Draw	324		324
	2 Draw	930		1860
	Total	1260		2184

If htat's too much trouble, just use a CODE box:

2 X 5's Cut off				
	Player			
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	90	240	90
	15	240	360	72
	10	90	72	6
				Cards Drawn
	 Both Stand	90		0
	1 Draw	660		660
	2 Draw	510		1020
	Total	1260		1680
				
				
2 X 10's Cut off				
	Player			
Dealer		20	15	10
	20	6	72	90
	15	72	360	240
	10	90	240	90
				Cards Drawn
	 Both Stand	6		0
	1 Draw	324		324
	2 Draw	930		1860
	Total	1260		2184

FYI: When posting, there's a link below the, Click here for formatting codes where the ocdes to do this and other stuff are explained.

Thanks DJ :)

I thought a CSM means there's less times when the count deviates from zero, and by a much lower range, so there's less times when basic strategy play would cost you over knowing the count.