4 ms·
Except that the stack isn't infinite. There's a statistical difference between playing off a physical deck and playing off a random number generator, and in a p
by solatic 9y ago
Except that the stack isn't infinite. There's a statistical difference between playing off a physical deck and playing off a random number generator, and in a physical deck, the dealing of various cards increases the relative odds that the other cards will come up later in the deck. It's the statistical foundation upon which card counting works.
Imagining that the physical deck is a virtual deck does not make it so. In an RNG-populated/virtual deck, there is a small but still real chance that, for instance, 20 aces could be dealt in a row, which is why game programmers use techniques like shuffle bags to prevent that from happening. An "infinite" physical deck, that was actually "infinite", would suffer from the same problem, and would need a physical solution, which would affect the odds which the casino is legally obligated to publish and adhere to.
- danmaz74 9y ago> It's the statistical foundation upon which card counting works. Exactly, so, if counting cards if forbidden (I'm not arguing if that is right or not), then having that statistical foundation isn't useful. As a different comment suggested, reshuffling at a fixed point (say, after one third of the cards have been dealt) should solve the problem in practice, also preventing the house to use counting in a meaningful way.