Question about Double Deck

How much of an advantage would an average and/or expert player gain if a Double Deck game was dealt out of a shoe (face up) as opposed to being dealt face down?

Last week, the Wiz, Miplet and I were playing at Terribles after the WovCon G2E dinner.

At one point, I asked the Wiz a similar question.

The game was a double deck pitch game, dealt face down. When a player busts, he flips his cards face up and the dealer scoops them. It seems to me that such disclosure would help a card counter in third base, and be counter-productive to the purpose of dealing face down. Additionally, there were times where I needed advice, and there were no objections to me showing both players my cards. There were also times where I was looking at Miplet's cards before acting.

That being the case, why not just deal face up?

After thinking briefly, the Wiz' only response was, "That would be a good 'Question for the Wizard'."

For the record, it was a $5 table. Wiz was betting a bit higher, but neither Miplet's nor my bets got above $15. Is that why they allowed us to peek? If so, it doesn't answer the question of busting face-up.

It seems to me that if a player claims to have busted, it shouldn't matter to anyone to verify that he really did bust, so why face up? (If he can't count to 22, and wants verification, that's a completely different issue.) But if he drew a ten on a hard 15, why bother showing?

I've sat at double deck games dealt at least three different ways - face down from the hand, face up from a shoe, and face up from the hand. The former seems by far the most popular, for reasons a dealer or floorperson might be able to explain.

At the face down games I've played at, the dealer ALWAYS turns up the cards when the player busts. I'm not aware of any exceptions. I'd be a little suspicious if they didn't do this. I think it has to do with the eye in the sky.

As for how big an advantage it would be, I'm not a counter, so I don't know for sure. All the cards are known at the end of the hand anyway.

I think its basically a mind set toward final and immediate resolution of any disputes and open behavior by dealers. Even at the five dollar table which may be viewed as for Little Old Ladies from Peoria where the rules might be a bit relaxed to keep things moving they don't want later disputes. I believe a player dealt a blackjack who waits to reveal it only gets 1:1. The casino prefers visibility and openness rather than assuming that tourist knows how to count and isn't tossing his money away. After all, if its a minor advantage at some point in time to a counter its going to be a major advantage to a cheat if the camera never sees it.

Sorry you were at Teribles.

If you are playing at third base, and not alone, some of the time you will not see all the dealt cards when dealt down. That negates
counting advantage to some extent re index play.

Most of us are AP, counting whatever we're counting. An average player likes to have "face down" that gives the pride of ownership - these are mine, as most Americans were taught in kindergarten: I can do whatever I want; I will show you what I have whenever I want to.

So the question at hand is why does the dealer expose his hole card when everybody at the table busts. I think it is in the interests of humoring players who just want to know what it would have been. You see players second guess themselves and other players all the time as they comment on would have happened had a play been made the other way. For example, "If you didn't hit the dealer would have busted." There is very little downside to exposing the card, so why not.

Same thing with letting players show each other their cards. The cards are dealt face down as a measure against card counting, but the casinos don't enforce it with an iron fist. In a friendly game the casinos turn a blind eye to the players showing each other their cards, as well they should. Basically, there is very little money lost to card counters, and probably more won from players who think they can count well, but can't. So they humor the players with these things that are marginally helpful to card counters, to keep us happy.

By the way, the reason I was betting big at Terrible's was their 10% rebate for a $1000 loss, which I achieved, as usual.

Quote: Wizard

So the question at hand is why does the dealer expose his hole card when everybody at the table busts.

I would expect that to be done out of common courtesy if nothing else. After all that "...and the floor was strewn as the sands of the sea with aces from the sleeves of the heathen Chinee" works both ways. Dealers have short sleeves or tight cuffs to protect the house, but ostensibly its done to protect the players. So even if each and every player busts, the dealers hole card is exposed each and every time. No exceptions. A procedural manual should be explicit and short. If you fill it with exceptions it defeats its purpose.

>By the way, the reason I was betting big at Terrible's was their 10% rebate for a $1000 loss, which I achieved, as usual.
Got to get them started on that 10% bonus for a $1,000 win!

But there is no reason to expose a down card on a double that can't possibly bust, or any 2-card stand after the dealer has busted. Pretty dumb given their hate of counters.

Quote: Wizard

So the question at hand is why does the dealer expose his hole card when everybody at the table busts.

That's not what I was asking. It's not even what the original poster was asking.

My question was about player busts being exposed.

When that happens, the players yet to act have more information. If they're counting, then they have more info on the hit/stand decision.

I guess part of what I'm asking is, does counting ONLY affect the bet, or does it affect the decisions too? And if decisions can be affected, why are busted hands exposed before the action is completed?

Quote: Wizard

By the way, the reason I was betting big ...

For the record, Miplet and I agreed that we would keep that info to ourselves. We felt it wasn't even our own business to know, so we certainly weren't going to broadcast it.

I was asking the question in an order to argue my point at my place of employement. Management claims we are having big losses on our double deck game "because we allow players to talk about the cards in their hand". I argue there is really not an atvantage because we expose all cards after each round. I can see that a player on third may gain a slight advantage when deciding if he wants insurance. I don't have any data or expert opinion to bring to my argument.

How would I prove I'm right or back down because I"m wrong?

In the specific insurance case, just see whether you're getting lots of insurance bets late in the shoe. I would say that generally, the impact to a game from skilled counters is going to be much more than the difference in impact between skilled counters making index plays based on seeing 4-5 extra cards/round vs. otherwise. In other words, dealing face-up/face-down is the least of your problems if your games are routinely being counted and you don't already know about it.

If you're actually taking big losses, you should worry about identifying the counters and getting them off your tables. Don't worry about whether the cards are face up or whether the players know about them anyway. Or look elsewhere for the reason your tables are dumping -- like dealer collusion or some other inside job.

About 30% of a counter's profit comes from insurance !! To say nothing of how it protects your bankroll.