Comments

Ø  First the obvious. At least with this simple scenario, shuffle tracking can be very profitable. However, be warned that this is hardly a common shuffle these days.

Ø  An improvement from standard NRS to extended NRS exists, but is not great. However, had I cut the good slugs further into the shoe the gain from extended NRS would have been greater.

Ø  Generally speaking, the overall cost of errors was not that bad. However, it should be noted that this is hardly a comprehensive study as only one shuffle was included. A smaller track zone, or a more diluted play zone, would be likely to experience much greater error effects.

Ø  In this series, an error in the track zone length was more severe than errors in locating the play zone. This is good news as TZ location is generally the easier task.

Ø  Combinations of errors can have a much greater impact than single errors. This is hardly surprising as multiple errors can multiply the effect.

Ø  Comparing sims II, X, and XI we see that nearly all of the gain of cutting good cards into play can be lost by two errors.

Ø  Even with no attempt at cutting good cards into play, the SCORE was dramatically improved. This is great news as cutting bad cards out of play is vastly easier than cutting good cards into play and using NRS methodology to bet through the play zone. In fact, a lone player who cannot simultaneously keep track of both a play zone and track zone in one shuffle might be better off only cutting bad cards out of play instead of tracking every other shuffle.

Caveat

This is hardly a comprehensive study. There are a huge number of variables in standard Blackjack card counting simulations. This is multiplied considerably in shuffle tracking sims. For the purposes of this sim, only one shuffle and one method of attacking the shuffle were used. Further, only one fairly tight dealer was used.

 © 2009 Norman Wattenberger