Posts Tagged ‘blackjack’
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…
A lot of players buy this baloney, and to be honest, it sounds very legit. There’s only one thing I don’t like about Swami Nonrandomi’s “logic,” and that is that it cannot be proven by computer simulation.
John Imming’s Real World Casino (RWC) software was the first software available to players that allowed programmable, nonrandom, casino-style shuffles. (The RWC software is no longer on the market.) The deck(s) begin in regulation new deck order, and the shuffle routines simulate actual riffles, strips, cuts, and washes, as fine or as clumpy as you decide, even utilizing casino-style breaks into multiple shuffling segments if you so desire.
Here’s what I found with the RWC software:
The biggest effect on the player’s expectation that I could find comes from no shuffling whatsoever. Ironically, this is a player advantage, not a house advantage. I’ve tried Imming’s software with 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 deck games, with both lay & pay and pick & pay dealing styles, and the player advantage rises by .70%-.75% if playing one-on-one with the dealer, regardless of the number of decks in play or the pick up style. Somehow, the play of the hands puts the cards into an order that favors the player.
Both Stanford Wong and John Gwynn had independently discovered this years earlier. Wong, in fact, ran a computer analysis to determine how the play of the hands ordered the discards, and he discovered that in the discard pile high cards do tend to clump with high cards, and vice versa. We don’t know why this favors the player, but it does.
As multiple players are added to the table, this no-shuffle player advantage diminishes. For some reason, the first base side of the table retains the advantage, but the third base side loses it and then some.
Once you start adding any type of shuffle at all to the game, however, the player advantages decrease, until the real world shuffle results are indistinguishable from the outcome of random-number-generated shuffles. The biggest effect I could find in a simulated casino game, utilizing what I figured to be the sloppiest shuffle you might realistically expect to find, was a couple tenths of a percent more or less than the normal basic strategy expectation.
My attempts at creating a sloppy shuffle that would have a greater effect than this were unsuccessful, even though the RWC software allows unlimited variations on lousy, inadequate shuffles.
So, where is this monstrous effect that Swami Nonrandomi promises? I just don’t buy the explanation that it happens in a casino, but not in a computer. Why not? New deck order is new deck order, and nonrandom sloppiness is nonrandom sloppiness. There’s nothing magical about a lousy, lopsided riffle that a computer can’t simulate.
But there is one factor all the nonrandom shuffle gurus have in common. They all say: “Oh, by the way, you can’t simulate this effect on a computer.” Yet they spout all kinds of precise percentages, based on their “personal studies.”
I say, “Baloney.” Computers may not be able simulate everything under the sun, but card games are one of the things computers are very good at simulating, especially if what you’re looking to calculate is a player’s expectation against a fixed house strategy. So take a hike, Swami. I don’t believe in gambling systems based on faith. If you can’t do the math, hit the path. Play poker online.
Online Casino Bonus Portal zu den besten Online Casinos mit Casino ReviewsOnline Blackjack Games Winning Blackjack
Tags: blackjack, casino style, online casino
Ever since players learned that there was a real method of beating the casino blackjack tables based on "tracking" the shuffles, the "nonrandom shuffle" gurus started making the rounds with systems that seemed to be based on related theories. Every few years for the past two decades, some self-proclaimed genius starts hustling a blackjack system based on the fact that casino shuffles do not distribute the cards randomly. For a few hundred bucks, one of these brilliant system developers will sell you the inside scoop on how to play blackjack by following the "trends," "clumps," and "biases."
Many variations have hit the scene, but the theory and playing methodology never really change much. Here's how Swami Nonrandomi's logic goes:
First, it's necessary to acknowledge that casino-style shuffles are less than perfect, and that the cards are not randomly distributed by these shuffles. No problem, since anyone who has played any length of time at casino blackjack tables can see that sloppy shuffles are easy to find. When new decks are brought in, it's not unusual to see occasional cards being dealt in consecutive new-deck order. So we know the shuffles are imperfect.
Next, you must accept the fact that these nonrandom shuffles affect the decisions on the hands dealt. No problem again. If you happen to see a dealer hit his fourteen with a six of spades, right after you doubled down on your eleven against his four up—and you caught the spade five—then you will be a believer. Yes! Yes! Those nonrandom clumps are killing me!
Now, what if you had a system designed to play those clumpy games? A system that made rational assumptions about hitting and standing based on the severity of the clumps? Yes! Yes!
Finally, a blackjack system that takes into account the kinds of weird stuff we actually see in the casinos. It's not a system based on some mathematician's analysis of some computer programmer's simulated billion hands of play. This is a reality-based system, and that's the only kind of system that works in the real world.
Card counters are out there talking about advantages of 1%, and they don't even realize that the casinos sometimes have a 10% advantage over them, based on the nonrandom shuffles. What's worse is that the same counters don't realize that they can get a 10% advantage over the casinos, courtesy of the same lousy shuffles.
Online Casino 320% Welcome BonusHow To Win At Blackjack Online Blackjack
Tags: blackjack, blackjack system, how to play blackjack, online casino