FRONT PAGE - Back to THE ADVISOR PAGE
The GameMaster Advisor
for December of 1999

Gamemaster,
I have seen you on Wong's forum, but didn't know whether to post a public question there or just send my question to this email. Anyway, here goes...

I'm a newbie at counting, using Hi/Lo, playing 6D, S17, DAO, DAS. I like your articles on the basic strategy variations that use the risk-averse methodology. It makes a lot of sense to me.

I have learned about 35 indices, combining the ones in your BJ Lessons along with the Illustrious 18, using yours where there is a difference, and his where you do not have a number. Probably too many for my weekend-warrior outings, but oh-well.

1) You mention that Friedman's paper suggests never doubling 10 vs 10. Does he say the same thing for 10 vs A?

2) You do not provide an index for 12 vs 6, but you list 12 vs 5 = -1. The Illustrious 18 shows 12 vs 5 = -2, and 12 vs 6 = -1. I have compromised and been using -1 for both 12 vs 5 and 12 vs 6. What is your suggestion here? I realize I shouldn't even be playing shoes at TC -1, but when it's crowded, sometimes you have to play through it...

Thank you very much in advance!
Pilot

Hi, Pilot.
Hey, don't ever apologize for learning too much. Knowing that many indices will serve you well.

As for your questions, what Friedman had to say about 10 vs. 10 is equally true in a case of 10 vs. Ace. So, don't double at any count, if you're following his 'risk-averse' style.

Regarding a 12 vs. 5, I show it to be a hit at -1, but I think the difference between that and "The Illustrious 18" is due to rounding and nothing more. Either will have about the same result in the long run. As for 12 against a 6, I use a -3; it wasn't included for the reason you stated, but I also understand crowded conditions.

Yours for winning,
The GameMaster
12/30/99


Dear Gamemaster:
I have read two different opinions concerning the non-random shuffle on the Blackjack player. One opinion said the effects are totally devastating and that casinos non-random shuffle on purpose to achieve this advantage. This opinion on the effects of the non-random shuffle is supposedly supported by author Peter Griffin in his book, Theory of Blackjack.

The other opinion states that non-random shuffling has an adverse effect on the third base side of the table but helps the first base side.

What is the story on non-random shuffling and who is right? Also, would you please provide me with your web-site address.

Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Mac

Hi, Mac.
Here's the scoop.

There is a school of thought out there that believes casino shuffles are not totally random and their theory's not wrong. "Random" is defined as each card having the same chance of appearing (suits, of course, don't matter). It's virtually impossible to completely randomize a deck through the 'normal' shuffling methods (unless it's done hundreds and hundreds of times) and, those who espouse that concept point to Dr. Griffin's book, "The Theory of Blackjack", particularly page 133 of the 1979 edition. What he says there about preferential shuffling giving a huge edge to the casino is no doubt true, but it's about single-deck games and it requires 5 'perfect' shuffles (an exact interleaving of one half of the deck with the other half) for the house to gain that edge and it's a skill few, if any, dealers have. And here's the kicker: the shuffles have to be performed on a new deck where the cards are in order! "Okay, but it's still not random", say the 'believers' , "but a computer does pick cards at random and that's not a reflection of the 'real world', so all that work done on computers is invalid". At that point, the non-random school stops explaining and just dismisses counting systems as invalid and, if they have a system for sale, they go into their pitch.

For what it's worth, here's my opinion of it all, based upon 20 years' of play and observation. Shuffles are not random, that's true. But here's an analogy: The moon circles the earth, so we know that the orbit is circular. But, take a 2-foot section of that orbit and, for most measuring devices, it will appear as a straight line. In other words, it's straight enough. Well, it's the same with one, two, four, six or eight decks of cards. They may not be totally random, but they're random enough for what we're trying to do. Maybe sometimes the cards may be in an order which favors the house and sometimes they'll be in an order which favors the player. You see, Griffin also says that 3 'perfect' shuffles gives a huge edge to the player; the 'non-random' advocates don't usually mention that part. Counting cards is rather inexact and that's why we only bet a small portion of our $$$ on each hand; we know we're going to lose some hands for whatever reason.

Whenever I get into a discussion of this topic with a non-random believer, I usually kill the conversation this way: "If card-counting is so ineffective, why do casinos: A) cut off cards at the end of a shoe, B) not deal single-deck games down to the last card and C) ask those who they believe are counting cards to leave?"

Isn't it Ocaam's Razor that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one? To the casinos it's simple: they don't want skilled card-counters at their tables. Why? Because counters get the $$$.

As for a non-random shuffle helping some and hurting others at the same table, I've not seen any credible evidence to make me believe that is true.
I hope this helps

Yours for winning,
The GameMaster
12/20/99


Hi, how are you?
I am trying to master Blackjack and win some money at Atlantic City. They use 8 decks and dealer hits on 16 and stays on 17. Can you tell me how I can improve my game? I saw the site was about a 6 deck game. I want to become a master. I am going to put aside an hour each day dedicated to blackjack.

Please help me out.
thanks,
Jae

Hi, Jae.
Everything you need is on our site, because it's all the same for 6 or 8 decks. I use 6 decks in most of my lessons, but there's no changes to be made if you play at an 8-deck game. Or at a 2- or 4-deck game, for that matter. Practice is important, but also seeking out good games where they deal far into the decks is too. Reports I've received recently seems to indicate that penetration is getting better in A.C. But, you need to know that it's still a bit of a grind and it's highly unlikely that you'll ever get rich from those games, but they can be beaten. We're here to help, so don't hesitate to e-mail me with your questions.

Yours for winning,
The GameMaster
12/17/99


Gamemaster,
I have been studying your blackjack lessons with much success. However, I have a few questions that I'm hoping you can help me with. In the "Decisions" exercise, I am encountering confusion about the A,x,x & A,x,x,x forms. The game I am playing is as follows:

6 Decks, S17, DA2, DAS, No Surrender (the same basic strategy you use as your example in Lesson 1)

I have been evaluating these forms in the following manner:

1. A,2,2 vs. 6 Treated like A,4 Double
2. A,3,4 vs. 9 Treated like A,7 Hit
3. A,4,2 vs. 6 Treated like A,6 Double
4. A,2,5 vs. 6 Treated like A,7 Double
5. A,5,A vs. 3 Treated like A,6 Double
6. A,4,2 vs. 3 Treated like A,6 Double
7. A,2,4 vs. 6 Treated like A,6 Double
8. A,4,A vs. 2 Treated like A,5 Hit
9. 10,2,A vs. 3 Treated like 13 Stand
10. 2,3,4,A vs. 6 Treated like A,9 Stand

Is this correct.? Any help and/or advice you can give would be greatly appreciated.
Gary

Hello, Gary.
What you're forgetting here is that it's not possible to double a hand where you've received a 'hit' card. So, the first example of A,2,2 vs. 6 is a hit, not a double. The second hand is correct; it's a hit. Number 3 is a hit, because you cannot double. Hand #4 is a stand, 5 is a hit, 6 is a hit, 7 is a hit; 8 is correct, it's a hit and both 9 & 10 are, as you say, stands. I wrote an article on this called "Multiple-Card Soft Hands" that will give you some easy rules to follow when confronted with these. It's in the Blackjack section of the "Story Archive" which can be found by clicking on the tab of that name on the top of the front page.

Yours for winning,
The GameMaster
12/7/99


GameMaster,
I have started playing the French roulette game at Global Player. I read your review and have been sticking with the outside bets due to the lower casino advantage, but I'm curious about your opinion of the best outside bet. I like thirds, so I usually cover two at a time. I often overlap when I get greedy, but I've discovered that the more conservative bet of covering two thirds of the board for a 100 percent return is a better way to go. I noticed that you only mentioned the "50/50" bets in your article. Is there an advantage to betting on these over my method? Any insight you can give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Brian

Hi, Brian.
The best way to bet Roulette is to keep the casino's edge to a minimum. The "50-50" rule applies only to the even-money bets like High/Low; Black/Red and Odd/Even, so those are the ones you should bet. Whether you are betting the dozens one number at a time, or betting them 'outside' (12P, 12M or 12D), the casino has an edge over you of 2.70%. You can cut that to 1.35% by betting only the even-money 'outside' bets.

Yours for winning,
The GameMaster
12/1/99