The extra advantage is not great with one deck cut in front, but every bit counts. And if you cut two or three decks in front, the extra edge climbs — although this also makes it somewhat more difficult to determine exactly when the PZ starts.

So, in the case that we cut a rich slug one deck into the shoe:

Ø  We start counting exactly as we would without tracking. I do not think it is worth the trouble to adjust the count downward because we know the first deck actually has a slightly lower than normal number of high cards. However, I have not tested this.

Ø  When we reach the PZ, we remember the current running count. We then change the running count to the IRC. That is    -1.5 times the RC of the TZ. If we want, we can also add .2 times the current RC.

Ø  We calculate the TC using 2.5 pseudo-decks through the PZ.

Ø  At the end of the TZ, we subtract the IRC from the count and add back the RC before the PZ and start using 6 decks again in calculating TC.

All of this calculating sounds very complex. However, keep in mind that much of it is performed at home before we play.

Let us take a quick look at performance. The chart below looks at SCOREs for several variations of shuffle tracking all using the sample shuffle in this chapter. A spread of 1–15 was used, Hi-Lo was the counting system with 20 accurate indices, and NRS was used for playing and betting through the play zones. The dealer accuracy in performing the shuffle was set to typical riffle accuracy and a fairly tight plus or minus 8 cards on the split (first division of the full stack) and plus or minus 3 cards on the grabs. Only one track zone was used. Every shuffle was cut according to track zone content.

The effect of errors is also examined, as errors in shuffle tracking are far more likely and far more costly than in simple card counting.

 © 2009 Norman Wattenberger