Spanish 21

I work at a casino and we just started offering Spanish 21. We just recently switched from a Continuous Shuffle Machine to a Shoe game (both 6 decks). Does the machine type effect the probability of getting a match for the match the dealer wager?

Nope.

The argument was that when all the cards are in the machine there are more possibilities for matches ... “true count” he says. I tend To agree with you...

Is there math to support this?

Quote: Casinoscotty

Is there math to support this?

i'm sure there is.
If I understand the question you are wondering between a six deck shoe with a cut-card in it and a continuous shuffler where discards get returned to the deck..
At six decks, i'd say the math types will be splitting hairs while the casino rakes in the money spreading the game.

That is correct. The reason to switch to a shoe game (vs CSM - where the cards are reloaded) was under the premise that card removal would lower the probability of getting matches.

If I wanted to prove this mathematically, any idea what approach?

I believe miplet is correct. When there are "match" style bonuses, I think there is no advantage to the player to continuously be dealt from a fresh shoe.

If the question were: "With 'match' style bonuses, is there an advantage to the player to play with a 6-deck shoe rather than a 3-Deck shoe?" The answer would be YES -with 3 deck shoes there will be a lower probability of making matches.. But starting with a 6-deck shoe and allowing 50% penetration ( to 3 x 52 cards) does not mean that the probabilities of player winning 'match' style bonuses are then (at 50% penetration) equivalent to those probabilities when starting with a 3-deck shoe.

The way to prove that probabilities of making matches do not change with penetration into a shoe is to make the following hand-waving argument :

If the probabilities of something, called "X", occurring after 50% penetration of a shoe are indeed different (say, lower) than the probability of that same thing occurring from a fresh shoe, than the probability of "X" occurring must be higher in the first half of the shoe than the second half of the shoe. But that is logically impossible, because if that were the case then what would happen if you dealt from the back of the shoe - essentially swapping the first half of the shoe with the 2nd half of the shoe? (Given that we are not tracking any of the cards) the probability of "X" occurring cannot change with penetration because the process of dealing from the shoe is symmetrical with regard to which end of the shoe you deal from -symmetrical with the direction of penetration.

Either I have hopelessly confused you, or you slap your head and say "Oh yeah, I get it."

Makes total sense ...

Would there be ANY advantage to the casino of using a shoe on Spanish instead of a CSM?

The CSMs are prone to breaking down just like the MD3 shufflers do. When an MD3 breaks down, you can hand-shuffle. When a CSM breaks down, you're borked.

There's also the fact that customers may balk at the CSMs, convinced that they're rigged. Any benefits the CSMs give you aren't worth anything if you lose your players.

Quote: Deucekies

Any benefits the CSMs give you aren't worth anything if you lose your players.

CSMs, rude dealers, nuisance charges, a bad chef, etc. Anything can drive customers to the casino next door even if 'next door is several hundred miles away.
I would think "getting borked" would have to be fairly frequent, though.

As to the shoe symmetry argument: Yes, thank you. It does indeed make perfect sense particularly when some players place that cut-card plastic thingie in a weird manner.

Unless you're counting cards it should make no difference whether you use a shoe or CSM. Technically there is slight possibility that if a large number of specific cards have gone so it becomes more likely there will be a match. However for practical purposes, assuming you have a reasonable sensible penetration, I would imagine there is little advantage to be had.

Thus the main issue is whether CSMs would drive customers away and you're happy using shoes.

Note it is a totally different issue if a sidebet, such as Super 7's, has an advantage dependent on specific cards being present or not.

When you keep shuffling up early, you shutdown a lot of variance in the 2nd half of the available shoe, whether it be a positive count or a negative count. I'd say casinos that shuffle up only on positive counts are cheating and I would avoid those games. Do casinos ever shuffle up when they are wiping out the table?

Sorry for the late arrival. I too say the shuffling method won't make any different on the odds of the Match the Dealer bet, or an extremely minute one. That is 20 years of experience saying that. If asked to prove it, I would run a simulation both ways.