Posts Tagged ‘casino style’
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.
Online Casino Bonus Portal zu den besten Online Casinos mit Casino ReviewsOnline Blackjack Games Winning Blackjack
Tags: blackjack, casino style, online casino