If you and a different player can lock up the platform, which would prevent a dealer from doing the same thing — and using the information to scramble the player’s favored platoons or to continue to deal with them. platforms that are unfavorable?
Probably very little, although the dealers are so rare.
Such a practice would not deceive a case-down player; its envelope would probably coincide fairly well with that of the croupier if both were competent.
The expert would soon note that the “coincidences” in which adverse platforms seemed to persist at the last card and the favorable ones were promptly scrambled.
The envelope by the croupier would have a devastating effect on the non-expert. The good basic strategy player would play unconsciously against a platform of 10 poor more time.
The bad innocent player would be largely deprived even of his little luck for a lucky winning streak. Once seen this way, locking up by the croupier is a subtle form of fraud.
Casino staff may think that the player who locks cheats. This idea is nonsense patent. The game of twenty-one casino is formulated in some way offers the player options in his game and so use whatever skill he has.
The game is also formulated to give the dealer no options. The control of the dealer over when scrambling does not bother this arrangement if time is elected in ignorance, but if the decision to scramble is based on a knowledgeable evaluation of the remaining platform, she cheats.
It has more or less the same effect as the practice of those casinos that were caught removing some cards from the deck. It seems unlikely that the envelope by the dealer would be interpreted as of the law by the gambling control board, but the possibility supports some thought.
Some casinos ask their dealers to pay attention to aces and change their disturbing tendencies accordingly near the end of the deck.
However, some may not have noted the practice of being very generally or skillfully used. Nevertheless, some dealers without the ability to lock up can nevertheless take advantage impromptu of unusual deck composition that comes to their attention.
For example, one of the most egregious premature threshing a player has seen occurred recently when he observed a frontal game between a pathetically bad player and a very ordinary dealer.
On the first hand after the hype, this player received two 5s, and the dealer showed some low card — a 3 or 4. The player should have doubled down, but instead he drew , still receiving 5.
With his hand, he should have stood, but he drew again — and got the fifth five. The fact that he won with this stupidly acquired 20 is irrelevant with this anecdote.
When the dealer eventually indicated the hand and saw all four 5s immediately, he realized that the four worst cards in the deck, from the player’s point of view, would be missing on all the deals following.
Ergo: he scrambled without taking care of another simple hand, against an obvious incompetent who had no idea what was happening and who had virtually no chance to beat him anyway.
Apparently, this croupier could not lock up a platform, but virtually any dealer knows the importance of 5s, and when all four of them stared at him in the face immediately, he enthusiastically scrambled back into the platform to deprive his opponent of na ‘ve of a temporary, unrecognized benefit.