Background At my local Indian casino, the Miss. Stud automated shuffler formerly dealt two card packets with the first ones corresponding to the player hands, and then dealt two 2-card packets corresponding to the community cards (with a burn card, I recall.) Recently, this order of dealing has changed at my local Casino. Now, the shuffler device deals a 3-card packet first for the Miss Stud community cards and then two card packets are dealt for the player cards.
Significant change? Who knows? Probably not. However, I make these claims:
- The automated shuffler software has indeed been changed (presumably by the manufacturer.)
- When I raised this issue in the WOV forum, the responses seemed to indicated that this change in the shuffler sequence for dealing Miss Stud cards had not occurred in Vegas or other state regulated casinos
- Now the automated shuffler clearly knows that the first three cards are the community cards; i.e., there are no ambiguities arising from how many players are at the table when identifying the community cards.
So, I wondered: What happens to the mathematical House Edge if the shuffler software is changed to (occasionally) control the rank of the very first community card to be turned over?
Calculations Remember: the theoretical Mississippi Stud House Edge = 4.9% (4.9149%) with perfect play.
In these calculations I assumed that all player hands are dealt randomly and that the 2nd and 3rd community cards are random, but that the first community card is known (or controlled.) I assume that all players follow the WOO site strategy. I calculate these House Edges
- 1st community card is a 2, 3 or 4 (all other cards are random) House Edge =57%
- 1st community card is a 5 House Edge =55%
These are round numbers because my method was approximate for one category of player hands: when the player has a suited High-Medium hand such as Ah-6h.
So basically, the Miss Stud house edge is increased from 5% to approximately 55% whenever the first community card (which I believe is the 1st card out of the shuffler at my Indian casino) is a low card.
To increase the mathematical House Edge from 5% to 10%, all the shuffler must be reprogrammed to do is to make the first card dealt from the shuffler a 2,3,4 or 5 (chosen at random) on 1 out of 10 deals. The shuffler software does not need to control the player cards, those are still dealt randomly. Players will still randomly get high pairs JJ-AA (and actually will get them slightly more frequently.) The other two community cards may still be dealt randomly, Just control the 1st community card to be a 2,3,4 or 5 on 1 out of ten deals. Would players notice that? I don't think so.
I also looked at a case where the first two community cards are two low cards of different ranks and suits, and all other cards are random. I specifically picked a 2c and 5h as the first two community cards, respectively. I calculate that the House Edge is 136.3557%! I think that is an exact calculation. So, if five players at a Miss Stud table have wagered a total of $200 before the cards are dealt, the house can expect to win an average of about $272.71 on that one deal if the first two cards are 2c and 5h (or some other non-matching suits and ranks from 2-5.) Now, that would be Beast Mode!
I expect that the largest Miss Stud House Edge achievable by controlling the community cards is 5h 4h 2d or other suit combinations in that pattern. I haven't yet calculated the House Edge for that set of community cards because I had seen enough to make my point.
So, if you are Chief SuckEmDry in charge of an Indian-regulated Casino, or Igor Ripemov in charge of a Russian casino, and you want to make more money from your Miss. Stud game then all you need to do to is to deliberately put a low card into the community cards every once in a while. Ka-ching!
Players beware, and keep your eyes wide open!
Note. This post was designed to be a little bit like an Elliot Jacobsen blog that has gone Through the Looking Glass.
For the record I too know of state regulated non-indian casinos that deal the 3 card flop first as well.
- Threads: 68
- Posts: 11933
Anyway, I enjoy calculations like this that look at things from a different angle. And Mississippi Stud is an easy subject because it is such a bipolar casino game. It has enormous mood swings.
I'm sure you could make millions from the ::tinfoil:: hat wearers that just want some mathematical plausibility to their theories such as this =P.
If I felt that writing legitimate gambling books was +EV I would take a shot. But I suspect that WOO and other internet sites have pretty much wrecked the gambling publication industry on everything except maybe poker. "Its hard to operate a brothel when so many girls give it away for free."
If you worry about a 55% casino house edge on MS, you can edge sort the cards. Problem solved!
Now, doggone it, stop outing all the good AP moves!
The 3,2,2,2,2,2,2 is probably the most common. UTH would be 5,2,2,2,2,2,2
I do not understand this post.
I do not understand this post.
He's talking about the settings on the shuffler, how they are programmed to come out of the machine. They don't HAVE to do it with the community cards first, but a lot of them do. And most of THOSE (in UTH) then place the dealer's hand next, followed by as many player hands as necessary. A few do give community, player (s), dealer.
The point being, if they always deal in that order, the first 2 batches of cards are always known to be house cards, and theoretically could be stacked thru programming.
There are other houses that simply deliver a shuffled deck, which the dealer may or may not cut before they pitch the hands.
And at least one place I play UTH where they start with 2-packets and deal to players first, dealer last, then hand-deal each of the flop and river from the stub after bets are placed/checked.
The thing he's describing, it has been my experience (and that's all I can claim), that the cards run significantly worse for the players when dealt this way. I don't care who you are, you see enough runs like that and you start to wonder if there's a gaff going on.
But I went on about it a bit last year, so not going to repeat myself.