| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gregg Cattanach
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
 |
|
medgirl wrote:
| Quote: |
The number of decks in the shoe game will change your expectation,
yes. But
I'm pretty sure if the CSM has 4 or 6 decks in the machine that
shouldn't matter much at all. As Victoria said, with a CSM you are
usually always playing in a close to neutral count situation. Every
place I've seen them used the put the cards back in the machine very
frequently.
Why wouldn't there be a difference in the house edge between 6 and 4
decks, or 6 and 5 decks, even in a CSM game? Granted, it's not large
(nor is it that large in a shoe game), but the CSM is similar to a
freshly shuffled shoe with every hand. The house edge for perfectly
played basic strategy is based on a freshly shuffled deck or shoe, or
as you said a neutral count situation, whether a shoe or CSM is used.
I would think the number of decks would matter, if only slightly. In
theory, you could have a single deck CSM, though I've never seen such
a thing. I would expect that to have a lower house edge than, say, a
5 deck CSM.
|
The number of decks in a shoe changes your expecation because of the
different number of ways to get the various combinations. With a CSM, they
are approaching an infinite deck model, where withdrawl of cards doesn't
affect the chances of the next card to come out. There might be a tiny
difference between 4 and 6 decks in the machine, but I would bet it is
infintesimal. The speed that they reinsert the cards back into the machine
is probably a lot more important.
--
Gregg C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
medgirl
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
"Gregg Cattanach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | medgirl wrote:
The number of decks in the shoe game will change your expectation,
yes. But
I'm pretty sure if the CSM has 4 or 6 decks in the machine that
shouldn't matter much at all. As Victoria said, with a CSM you are
usually always playing in a close to neutral count situation. Every
place I've seen them used the put the cards back in the machine very
frequently.
Why wouldn't there be a difference in the house edge between 6 and 4
decks, or 6 and 5 decks, even in a CSM game? Granted, it's not large
(nor is it that large in a shoe game), but the CSM is similar to a
freshly shuffled shoe with every hand. The house edge for perfectly
played basic strategy is based on a freshly shuffled deck or shoe, or
as you said a neutral count situation, whether a shoe or CSM is used.
I would think the number of decks would matter, if only slightly. In
theory, you could have a single deck CSM, though I've never seen such
a thing. I would expect that to have a lower house edge than, say, a
5 deck CSM.
The number of decks in a shoe changes your expecation because of the
different number of ways to get the various combinations. With a CSM,
they
are approaching an infinite deck model, where withdrawl of cards doesn't
affect the chances of the next card to come out. There might be a tiny
difference between 4 and 6 decks in the machine, but I would bet it is
infintesimal. The speed that they reinsert the cards back into the
machine
is probably a lot more important.
|
Then how do you calculate the edge with the CSM games to start with?
Looking at Stanford Wong's CBJN, the house edges given for the CSM games
correspond to what you would expect for the equivalent shoe games. For
example, comparing the MGM Grand's 4 deck CSM game with an edge of 0.42 to
the Mandalay Bay 5 deck CSM game with an edge of 0.44 (all other rules being
equal). This is a small difference between the 4 and 5 deck games, but it
is still a difference (and no smaller a difference than all of the other
things we look at - effect of rule variations, the Wizard of Odds assessment
of cut card effect vs. CSM, etc.)
I see what you are saying about the withdrawal of cards not affecting the
chance for the next card to come out with the CSM, but I don't see why this
would affect off-the-top house edge. The number for that is always based on
a freshly shuffled deck/shoe, which is all the CSM is - a shoe shuffled
after every hand.
If there is no difference with different numbers of decks in a CSM, why
don't they use just one or two decks and save on the cost of cards? My
understanding as to why they don't use _more_ decks is that the machines
themselves tend to jam with larger numbers of cards. Otherwise I expect the
casinos would use as many decks as possible, at least up to the point where
that has a significant effect on the house edge.
m |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Cattanach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
medgirl wrote:
| Quote: | "Gregg Cattanach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
medgirl wrote:
Then how do you calculate the edge with the CSM games to start with?
Looking at Stanford Wong's CBJN, the house edges given for the CSM
games correspond to what you would expect for the equivalent shoe
games. For example, comparing the MGM Grand's 4 deck CSM game with
an edge of 0.42 to the Mandalay Bay 5 deck CSM game with an edge of
0.44 (all other rules being equal). This is a small difference
between the 4 and 5 deck games, but it is still a difference (and no
smaller a difference than all of the other things we look at - effect
of rule variations, the Wizard of Odds assessment of cut card effect
vs. CSM, etc.)
|
Just like I said, there is a tiny different, (.002%). this is 2cents for
every $100 wagered. Certainly not something to worry about or to change
your selection of tables to play at.
--
Gregg C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
medgirl
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
"Gregg Cattanach" wrote:
| Quote: |
The number of decks in the shoe game will change your expectation,
yes. But
I'm pretty sure if the CSM has 4 or 6 decks in the machine that
shouldn't matter much at all. As Victoria said, with a CSM you are
usually always playing in a close to neutral count situation. Every
place I've seen them used the put the cards back in the machine very
frequently.
|
(snip to other post)
"Gregg Cattanach" wrote:
| Quote: | The number of decks in a shoe changes your expecation because of the
different number of ways to get the various combinations. With a CSM, they
are approaching an infinite deck model, where withdrawl of cards doesn't
affect the chances of the next card to come out. There might be a tiny
difference between 4 and 6 decks in the machine, but I would bet it is
infintesimal. The speed that they reinsert the cards back into the machine
is probably a lot more important.
|
medgirl wrote:
| Quote: |
Then how do you calculate the edge with the CSM games to start with?
Looking at Stanford Wong's CBJN, the house edges given for the CSM
games correspond to what you would expect for the equivalent shoe
games. For example, comparing the MGM Grand's 4 deck CSM game with
an edge of 0.42 to the Mandalay Bay 5 deck CSM game with an edge of
0.44 (all other rules being equal). This is a small difference
between the 4 and 5 deck games, but it is still a difference (and no
smaller a difference than all of the other things we look at - effect
of rule variations, the Wizard of Odds assessment of cut card effect
vs. CSM, etc.)
|
"Gregg Cattanach" wrote:
| Quote: | Just like I said, there is a tiny different, (.002%). this is 2cents for
every $100 wagered. Certainly not something to worry about or to change
your selection of tables to play at.
|
Well, that's between 4 and 5 decks (0.02, by the way, not 0.002). Between 4
and 6 decks it's more like 0.04. I agree, a very tiny difference. But then,
surrender is only worth 0.06 and people seek that out. It's all moot,
really, since no serious blackjack players are going to play CSM games
anyway, and few others would be so obsessive as to care about fractions of
house edge.
But the point of all this wasn't that you should strive to find a 4 deck CSM
instead of a 6 deck CSM. It just sounded to me like you were saying there
was something fundamentally different about calculating house edge with a
CSM compared to a shoe game. If that is so, I would like to understand it,
because I did not understand a CSM to be the equivalent of an infinite
number of decks, mathematically speaking (from a counting standpoint it
might as well be, but not for basic strategy alone). It seems to me that
the house edges should be the same, with the number of decks having the same
effect, with some correction for cut card.
m |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
I really appreciate all of the input from everyone!
Just curious about this strategy...
I think this is going to be a bit more of a "gamble" than playing
strict basic strategy against a CSM, but it might be fun. Might even
work sometimes.
The thought is that in a CSM there should be an even number of "bust
cards" (2-6) as there are 10's and Aces that show up over a given time
period. If this is correct, could you just keep a continuous count
going (say Hi-Lo), since there is never a shuffle, and shouldn't this
count remain reletively close to zero over the course of play?
If the above answer is "yes", would it be feasible to start betting
higher when the count is very positive, because many 10's and Aces are
needed to bring the count back around zero?
Please be gentle if this is absurd...
Thanks!
Rob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Cattanach
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
Rob wrote:
| Quote: | I really appreciate all of the input from everyone!
Just curious about this strategy...
I think this is going to be a bit more of a "gamble" than playing
strict basic strategy against a CSM, but it might be fun. Might even
work sometimes.
The thought is that in a CSM there should be an even number of "bust
cards" (2-6) as there are 10's and Aces that show up over a given time
period. If this is correct, could you just keep a continuous count
going (say Hi-Lo), since there is never a shuffle, and shouldn't this
count remain reletively close to zero over the course of play?
If the above answer is "yes", would it be feasible to start betting
higher when the count is very positive, because many 10's and Aces are
needed to bring the count back around zero?
Please be gentle if this is absurd...
|
No, it just won't work. The only reason that counting works at all is that
it IS predictive of what remains in the shoe to be dealt. With a CSM, this
is never true. What you've already seen doesn't predict anything about what
will come next.
--
Gregg C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: Poor playing conditions |
|
|
I guess this is similar to the roulette strategies that say we should
bet certain numbers because they are "due" (they haven't hit in a long
time). This strategy works many times, but it doesn't work so often
that it's just not a sound strategy in the least.
Now that I think about it, a hi-lo count may indeed remain close to
zero much of the time, but it would probably go quite positive (20+) or
quite negative and just stay for a while quite a bit of the time also.
Oh well... Happy Gambling!
Rob |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
