What is stripping and washing?

Who is the Bishop?

Is a loust card a bad card?

Pricholas asked:
What is stripping and washing?

Who is the Bishop?

Is a loust card a bad card?
*******

#1
Stripping is the act of cutting the deck by repeatedly taking "stripping" small packets from the top of the deck (or even sometimes from the center) onto the previously cut packets - sometimes called a "running cut". Washing is mixing of the cards by spreading the deck(s) face down on the table (all over the place it seems) and pushing them around singly or in small groups. This more or less breaks any blocks or patterns that the cards may have formed... at least if done properly.
#2
"The Bishop" is author and BJ expert Arnold Snyder.
#3
I think that is a typo and he meant "lousy" card.

Hope that helps.
LVLEW

Lvlew is right on all accounts.
Even in correctly identifying my "loust" typing skills...
lol

Snyder is great to be certian. I still tip my hat to Thorpe. Not as practical as it once was but "Beat the Dealer" was an eye opener.

I don't even bother shuffle tracking. One I have never spent enough time to do it correctly. I heard rumors and spoke to some of the MIT guys and watched them do some of it but I could not do it myself. You can increase your odds by playing multiple hands when tracking. That is really helpfull.
Another thing it seems to do is distract from actual counting, which brings your % way down and that is bad overall.

In poker you do not have to find a dealer you can be the dealer. Also you can follow cards through a strip but has Danny said there is no certernty with it is just an edge.
When I am the dealer I can tell you at least 50% of time one card that will show on the board and can do it in a casino with a casino procedure shuffle every hand no matter who is watching. This is not a killer advantage but it helps.

It sure does.

I am sure it does. Ace sequencers utilize it all the time in blackjack.
I have just never played hardly any poker, nor cared much for the game. To each is own.

I would have stopped counting long ago if not for tracking. I have found it fascinating mappoing shuffles, and when you find trackable houses, a lot more profitable. Tracking is still quite viable in hand shuffled shoes games. Almost all of them are in my area, except the indian casinos in Oklahoma.

As to getting burned, I have helped several counters get into tracking and what I tell them to do is to read BBin BJ, start mapping, and then when they go to the casino, bet their regular spread with the true count as they would normally do when counting. BUT keep mental notes of where the slugs should be coming out, and watch and see if they are right. (They usually aren't for awhile. ) IF / WHEN they are hitting at least 90% of the time, then they can begin betting their hard earned money in correlation with their tracking calculations. If they're not hitting it most of the time, the need to continue to bet with the true count.
But once the have it, even if they screw up once in a while, if they are hitting most of the slugs most of the time, they are playing with such a fat advantage, that they will still come out way ahead of traditional counting. And tracking is not nearly as dependant on penetration as traditional countin gis eaither. The thing is to be able to quickly realize and admit it, when you are off and and back off your bets. It happens to every tracker from time to time.

The other great thing about tracking is that it buys you a huge amount of cover. I have been at tables with traditional counters when I was tracking, and my bets usually don't correspond with theirs. I have sat and watched traditional counters bet up into a high count, while I stayed at table minimum, knowing that the slug was still maybe a deck or more away. They'd sit there giving high bet after high bet to the house, while an already high count goes still higher, and I'd have sit there wanting to tell them to wait, but knowing I couldn't say or do anything. Then to add nsult to injory, when they have been getting creamed, I start moving my bets upwhile the slug comes out. IT ends up looking like I am a progression bettor, and the house loves progression bettors.I even once had another guy at my table get the dreaded "tap on the shoulder" and they didn't bat an eye at me.

In fairness, I also rat hole chips, which always makes me look like I am losing. But between that and tracking, I seldom ever get a glance.
But I honestly actually sort of enjoy the whole cat and mouse thing with the pit too.
MXRay

I don't know why more guys don't rat hole chips. It is so obvious, but they love the ego thing of having huge amounts of chips in front of them.

The other thing that works is to pull your bets from the circle. Sounds dumb, but if you pull the bet every time, it somehow looks different to the house. Try it you may be supprised.

I don't understand if the count is right, why wouldn't you bet, regardless of the slug? I mean the true count is the true count. The slug gives you a bigger advantage to be certian, but why not bet the smaller advantage also? In shoe games the deck does not stay good for long so why not take a small advantage of it at least?

Casinos will practically send a limo for progression betters. Tell them you want to use a martingale progression and show them a big enough bank account and they will send a helicopter! (not really just an exageration)

Black Belt in Blackjack is a great book by the way I agree.

Danny,

For an exaggerated rationale behind not betting into a good true count, consider this deck: the top half is all the low cards, the bottom half is all the high cards (the 7,8 and 9s scattered randomly).

A counter sees the low cards coming out and starts to bet into the rising count. Unbeknownst to him, the high cards are still a half-deck away. The shuffle tracker bides his time and waits for the slug. He'll actually be betting into a count that is going down! Going down because all the high cards are on their way out.

Again, this is an exaggerated scenario, but hopefully I got the concept across.

Jason

Jason I do get the idea. Your right. Though exaggerated.

But life is far less exaggerated than this. My point is that mathmatically your advantage is at a certian point, regardless of the slug, why not bet it?

Most counters I know anyhow have degrees of increase depending on how positive the deck is. So you still have an andvantage, completly independent of the slug, that you are not betting. In a 6 deck shoe keeping track of the minor slug is helpfull to be sure, but arren't you not betting an advantage when you have one? That leaves money on the table.

I am not saying shuffle tracking is not good. FAR from it. It is huge which is why casinos hate it. Not my point. BUT if you leave money on the table by not betting properly during an advantage, that is bad also.

I am NOT trying to argue mind you. I agree with tracking and if I had a casino I could play in that didn't have shuffle machines I would try to learn. I just am uncertian about not betting an advantage. (allowing for a correct true count)

Danny,

There will certainly be times when a shuffle tracker would bet along with the rising count.

But there may be legitimate reasons why one wouldn't. Camouflage is a big one. Betting into a rising count is something counters do constantly. If you wanted to prolong your stay, or avoid having software run against your play, it might help to flat bet during rising counts, and only increase your bets during 10-rich slugs (when the count will actually start to drop).

Keep in mind, a counter bets into a rising count because of an assumption that card counting makes: that the cards are distributed more or less evenly. If you had no other information regarding high card distribution, then naturally you would bet into a rising count because those good cards (10s and As) will have to start coming out eventually.

With shuffle tracking you potentially have that "extra" information and the possibiliy exists to be more precise than "eventually." If a tracker has identified a really rich bank of cards, then he may limit his bets before the slug (while the count rises) because he knows it isn't going to start dropping until the dealer gets into the rich section.

You only have the edge if the high cards are coming out. A counter has to assume they'll come out with reasonable distribution. A good shuffle tracker has the ability to go a step beyond that.

Jason

Do you know how many people are able to do this?

What percentage would they have in their favor?

There is no real way to have the ability to calculate the advantage this gives you. BUT believe me shuffle tracking works when done right. I belive I am in complete agreement with Jason on this. Pleas tell me if I am out of wack here.

Jason certianly another way they find counters and trackers is the big bet spreads. This is actually the downfall of most counters who get barred. Too big a check spread too fast. If you disguise it like a martingale system or in frustration or any number of a 100 ways, it looks more natural. Doubling up on a rising count makes you look like a system player, more than a counter.

If you drop big bets right when the slug hits, it looks like your waiting.

Again let me clarify, tracking WORKS. I don't do it as I don't have access to a casino that dosn't use one of the godforsaken shuffle machines! I just don't like the idea of not betting the edge when you have it.

The advantage you have already takes into account that you don't know what order the cards will come out in. It is possible, not probable mind you, that they will all come out after the cut off part. You may never see them. This can happen. Stay at a table long enough and you see a dealer 9 card 21.

That is why it is only an advantage. Not a mathmatical certianty. That is what causes the spreads in winning even though you count. It is no guarantee of anything. I have heard of trackers who bet even higher in the slug, but holding off on betting the advantage is counter intuative to me. ONLY me mind you. That does not in any way make it wrong to do.

Danny,

Just to clarify, many shuffling machines are still trackable. Their shuffles are not nearly random enough and indeed may even facilitate tracking. At least one shuffling machine can acheive as close to pure randomness as you could want, and therefore isn't trackable. But it isn't in wide use.

Figure out which machines are in use near you, and then start asking around on some of the blackjack forums. The machines you're seeing may still be beatable.

Jason

In poker when I deal 100% of the time I can name card hitting the board exactly at these %

Flop 3/8 37.5%
Turn 1/8 12.5%
River 1/8 12.5%
Total 5/8 62.5% Overall

Burn 3/8 37.5%

If it does not show on the flop then it shows on the:

Turn or River 2/5 40%
Turn 1/4 25%

If it does not show on the Flop or Turn then it shows on the:

River 1/3 25%

Tommy I believe your percentages are a bit off. You really have to do millions of hands to calculate the % of which you speak with any real authority statistically speaking.

Your overall % is just incredible, are you sure you arrived at it correctly?

Jason I have heard a LOT about tracking machines. I simply have gone from gambling being my profession to being my hobby and performing being my profession. I don't have the time to dedicate to it.

I want to add one thing about "acts" in a casino particularly Blackjack. Hardly anyone does the "drunk" any more. The guy who gets so much attention that nobody pays attention. It works believe me. They already pay attention to you for one thing, bad behavior and they never feel a "drunk" could count. I bet more people do it than I see, as I don't have as much time any more to look, but it seems an art that has seen better days.

If you say so but it's a fact not a stat.

Anyway it will be one of the 8, that is one the burn, or flop, or turn or river cards.
Which one I don't know but it will one of them. So it if it an't shown by the turn it will ether be one of the burn cards or the river card, so that's 1 in 4 chance or 3/1 aganst or 25%.

Tommy I am saying that the statistical representations of what your trying to do may indeed be arrived at a bit differently.

Also that if you want them to have any statistical validity, then indeed you can't keep track of results in your head and only and deal only a few thousand hands.

Danny, though I have enjoyed this thread, I had just bowed out for a while mostly because IMHO, everything Jason said was so dead on, and he is a little better at explaining than I am, anyway.

As to your statement :
""If you drop big bets right when the slug hits, it looks like your waiting. ""

You right, when the count is high. But when the count is either neutral, or actually negative, (happens more than you would think) it makes you look like either a hunch player or (better yet) a progression player. Again, you are right that casinos especially love the latter!!

As I am sure you already know, these days the guys watching the eye can easily tell when the count is high. So consider these two different players :

Player A: Quiet, never drinks, and maybe sometimes looks down or averts his eyes when the floorman comes to the table. He bets the minimum until the count goes up, then increases his bet proportionately with the true count. If a floorman gets suspicious, and pulls up this player's history, the floorman may see an unusually high number of sessions where the player has cashed in while "up". That sure looks a lot like an "advantage player".

Player B: Comes in, makes sure the floorman sees him, and takes his comp card, sometimes bets the minimum, sometimes raises his bets. Sometimes his bets correspond with the count, but a lot of the time they don't, and the player leaves the table with less than he cashed in for.
If the player asks the floorman for a comp or, for some reason, the floor gets suspicious and pulls up this player's history , he sees losing session after losing session for this player. Hey, this guy's a good, loyal (read regular loser) customer.

To the floorman, Player "A" at least appears to be a traditional counter to. On the player's rating card he will likely make a note to watch this guy next time.

Meanwhile, to the floorman, player "B" appears to be just another sucker, who typically plays hunches or progressions, predictably loses, and then wants a comp, just like most recreational players. "Hey, let's get our friend here a comp!"

Who do you think is more welcome back next time and the time after that?
MXRay