PHASE 3.394 — LAYMAN SUMMARY
Clean Peek vs Clean No-Peek

WHAT DID WE DO?

We kept this experiment simple.

For every numbered session, the Peek game and the No-Peek game started with the same £100 bankroll and the same freshly generated six-deck card order.

Then we let each version play naturally.

We did not force the cards back into line after the two games became different.

That is important. If the dealer-Blackjack rule causes one version to use an extra card, the later cards may change too. That is the real knock-on effect we wanted to see.


WHAT IS PEEK?

In the clean Peek version, a dealer natural Blackjack is resolved before further player actions on that hand.


WHAT IS NO-PEEK?

In the clean No-Peek version used here, the normal player actions can take place before the dealer natural Blackjack is resolved. All committed Split or Double stakes then lose to that dealer natural under this declared model.

This is the specific No-Peek rule used for the experiment. We are not claiming every casino uses exactly this version.


WHAT HAPPENED?

The answer was very consistent.

PRIMARY:

Clean Peek finished with an average bankroll of £88.55.

Clean No-Peek finished with an average bankroll of £86.00.

That is about £2.55 more per session for Peek.

HOLDOUT:

Clean Peek finished with an average bankroll of £87.59.

Clean No-Peek finished with an average bankroll of £86.23.

That is about £1.36 more per session for Peek.

The direction therefore repeated in both populations.


DID THE KNOCK-ON EFFECT ACTUALLY MATTER?

Yes.

In PRIMARY, the final bankroll was different between Peek and No-Peek in 34.28% of the same-start sessions.

In HOLDOUT, it was different in 35.05% of sessions.

That does not mean every difference was a direct financial loss on the dealer-Blackjack hand.

Sometimes the important change is simply that one version uses a different card. From that point the later journey can naturally become different.

That is why we played the complete session rather than stopping shortly after the dealer Blackjack.


WHAT ABOUT THE HISTORICAL VERSION?

We also kept the Historical Frozen rules as a reference.

There is one important point.

The original mature research carried shoes across sessions. Phase 3.394 intentionally starts each numbered session fresh so Peek and No-Peek can receive exactly the same starting card order.

Therefore the Historical Frozen totals in this phase are a reference inside this new fair comparison. They should not be mistaken for a reproduction of the old persistent-session population totals.


WHAT DOES THIS TELL US?

The rules issue was worth checking.

When the game is played from identical session starts, clean Peek and clean No-Peek do not produce identical journeys.

Clean Peek was better for the bankroll on average in both PRIMARY and HOLDOUT.

But the experiment remains easy to understand:

Same £100 start.
Same starting cards.
One game uses Peek.
One game uses No-Peek.
Play the whole session naturally.
Compare where each player finishes.


PHASE 3.394 CONCLUSION

PASS.

The complete knock-on effect is visible without needing to split the session into complicated individual dealer-Blackjack experiments.

The next phase should test whether this same result remains stable under a further robustness/replication check before we decide how much it changes the final research interpretation.
