Blackjack house edge in relation to the cut card placement in 6 or 8 deck shoe
December 17th, 2011 at 7:09:45 AM
permalink
I have been in a casino owned by a government.
The conditions that define who is allowed to be in this casino is defined by a regulation of the local jurisdiction.
This regulation does not allow the casino's management to kick card counters out.
In order to protect the profitability of their operation, this casino's management define the deck penetration (the placement of the cut card) in relation to the skill of the players present. In other words: if a player is reputed to be a card counter the dealer is asked to cut the deck at half the shoe but if no known card counter are present, dealers are instructed to place the cut card at 2-3 decks from the end of the deck.
Moreover, a law of this jurisdiction requires the administrators of this casino to define a code of ethics for all the employees.
This code of ethics specifies explicitly that all customers should be served equaly which might be in contradiction with the practice of defining the deck penetration in relation to player's skill level.
I am currently working on the case of a dealer that suffered from severe disciplinary measures because he did not placed the cut card at half of the deck when a known card counter was present at his table.
I believe the disciplinary measures he suffered from were illegitimate as serving card counters differently from other blackjack players goes against the code of conduct is has to comply to by the force of law and/or employement contract.
In order to substantiate this position, I would like to find a rigorous analysis (a document of scientific value) that shows that the house edge is modulated by deck penetration in 6 and 8 deck blackjack. Idealy, I would like to have an analysis that shows that deck penetration not only affects the house edge for card counters but also the house edge for basic strategy players if it is really the case as I believe.
Thank you for reading and helping me out finding this analysis.
(Please note that a contract does not allow me to reveal which casino is concerned in the situation described above.)
The conditions that define who is allowed to be in this casino is defined by a regulation of the local jurisdiction.
This regulation does not allow the casino's management to kick card counters out.
In order to protect the profitability of their operation, this casino's management define the deck penetration (the placement of the cut card) in relation to the skill of the players present. In other words: if a player is reputed to be a card counter the dealer is asked to cut the deck at half the shoe but if no known card counter are present, dealers are instructed to place the cut card at 2-3 decks from the end of the deck.
Moreover, a law of this jurisdiction requires the administrators of this casino to define a code of ethics for all the employees.
This code of ethics specifies explicitly that all customers should be served equaly which might be in contradiction with the practice of defining the deck penetration in relation to player's skill level.
I am currently working on the case of a dealer that suffered from severe disciplinary measures because he did not placed the cut card at half of the deck when a known card counter was present at his table.
I believe the disciplinary measures he suffered from were illegitimate as serving card counters differently from other blackjack players goes against the code of conduct is has to comply to by the force of law and/or employement contract.
In order to substantiate this position, I would like to find a rigorous analysis (a document of scientific value) that shows that the house edge is modulated by deck penetration in 6 and 8 deck blackjack. Idealy, I would like to have an analysis that shows that deck penetration not only affects the house edge for card counters but also the house edge for basic strategy players if it is really the case as I believe.
Thank you for reading and helping me out finding this analysis.
(Please note that a contract does not allow me to reveal which casino is concerned in the situation described above.)
