From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: Penetration...
Organization: NASA/ARC Information Sciences Division
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.151407.14125@wam.umd.edu> cheese@wam.umd.edu (Fletch F. Fletch) writes:
>In his book, "Million Dollar Blackjack," Ken Uston charts various acceptable
>and unacceptable penetrations for single deck blackjack, based on number of
>players at the table and number of rounds.  For example, he claims that while
>playing head-on, single deck, 7 rounds is very good, 6 is acceptable, while
>5 is unacceptable.  Under current playing conditions, what kind of single
>deck penetration can be expected in LV.  I'll be going to LV next week for the
>first time (obviously playing single deck for the first time) and was wondering
>what kind of penetration would be acceptable and what would be unacceptable
>as far as head-on play, all the way through a full 7-spot table (in which case,
>two rounds is obviously the only acceptable game).  Can I expect to find these
>acceptable penetrations throughout LV?  Are there any differences between 
>downtown and the strip?  Any information on this topic would be greatly
>appreciated.

You are asking exactly the right questions.  Most card counters don't know
how to identify good games.  Penetration is one of the most important
factors.

On Vegas single deckers with downtown rules, here are the penetrations in
terms of rounds x spots you'll typically find:

ROUNDS SPOTS  RATING
  6      1     Good
  4      2     Pretty good
  3      3     Okay
  2      4     Unacceptable
  2      5     Unacceptable
  2      6     Barely tolerable (play two hands, demand excellent rules)
  2      7     Okay (play two hands, demand good rules)

If you can consistently get more than this, say, 7 rounds to 1, 5 rounds
to 2, or 3 rounds to 4, then you've found an excellent game!  If you get
less than this, you should probably shop around for a better dealer or
a better casino.

If you don't get the above number of rounds *consistently*, this could
be costing you a lot.  For example, my simulations and return on
investment analysis have shown that min 60% penetration (i.e., dealing
another round if 31 or fewer cards have been dealt) is considerably less
profitable than a constant 6 rounds of 1 or 4 rounds of 2 (don't know about
3 rounds of 3.)  Min 60% penetration creates unintentional preferential
shuffling, since often if the count is negative you get an extra round and
if the count is positive you get one fewer round.  That's bad enough, but
if you are hit with *intentional* preferential shuffling, i.e., the dealer
card counting and screwing you over, then your advantage may well be
nullified.

Four Queens now has a shuffle machine at one table.  Observed penetration
was 2-3 rounds of 2!  This is horrifying!  They could afford to do this,
since the shuffle machine took all the time out of shuffling.  But with
a little experimentation, I found that at least one dealer would do 3
rounds of 4 spots.  Go figure.  At the other single deck table (hand
shuffled), a FAD (Female Asian Dealer) screwed me over, despite getting
a hefty tip from me early on.  I often keep track of the number of rounds,
just to make sure the penetration is what I think it is.  I watched the
penetration fall from 6 rounds to 1 to 5 rounds to 4 rounds, evidently
the FAD cutting back penetration on her own initiative since I was winning.
If I hadn't been counting the rounds, I might not have noticed so quickly
that it was time to leave.

Overall the general rec.gambling consensus seems to be that penetration
in Vegas is poorer now than a year ago.

-- 
Michael Hall            \
NASA Ames Research Center\ Card counters do it with penetration.
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \ 
Newsgroups: rec.gambling,ont.forsale,misc.forsale