See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 40 to 52 of 57

Thread: ASM machines Question

  1. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    way out west
    Posts
    178


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I was trying to relate to the point that the casino nearly everyday changes the outcomes of the games. Not just blackjack. It happens in other games as well. That 1st player, had the cards been placed in order correctly should have won... but instead got "the procedures" from the floor (that they can't back up the ten and yadda yadda yadda)... The game has now changed.The outcome has now significantly changed (sometimes it doesn't change... a ten is delivered in the next hit). Yes... There was a mistake, but 99% of the time in this scenario... which happens nearly every night... the floor changes the outcome. When they could easily bring the card back and not change the outcome and fix the "dealer mistake" entirely.

    Dropping the deck in the middle of a hand dealt 2D game when there is already a cut card to designate when to end the shoe is clearly changing the game as well.

  2. #41


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by dunknballer21 View Post
    And you have statistical evidence to show how these ASMs are constantly producing bad shoes? Or are these just anecdotal, "Man, I lost a lot of money lately. Must be the ASMs."
    Yes my sample size is small. roughly 60 hrs for the past two months. But in these 60 hrs, I see the cards pattern different from when I played before my long vacation. As an AP I have been through bad swings, I mean really bad swings. But the way I have been losing recently is very different from my previous experience which is several years. I mean for the past two months I literally spent time studying the cards in each shoe and they were all like that. Because of the pattern/grouping, I lost much much more quickly even when the count was pretty much neutral, like slowly eating away the money. Like I mentioned, I also asked other basic strategy players and also the dealers and they noticed the difference too. My original goal for posting this thread was seeking advice for how I change my play when cards are clumped. I am not accusing all ASMs are rigged. As I have been playing 8 decks many years counting down 300 something cards for each shoe, I can distinguish if the cards are randomly distributed or they are grouped in similar values. And lastly, I have lost way more than this time in the past and I didn't post on this forum or blamed ASMs. Again, everyone can have their own experience and opinion. Thanks.

  3. #42


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It's called confirmation bias.

  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by miadebaba View Post
    Yes my sample size is small. roughly 60 hrs for the past two months. But in these 60 hrs, I see the cards pattern different from when I played before my long vacation.
    Once someone says something is happening you look for it and even though the frequency of occurrence hasn't changed you notice it more than you used to. You believe it is occurring more. At a craps table this is apparent. 11 are said to come in clumps. They come in clumps just as often as any other number but one an 11 follows an 11 it is pointed out reinforces the ploppy superstition. 7 out is said to happen within 4 rolls of the dice going off the table. What are the odds of 7 out in 4 rolls?
    1/6 + 5/6*1/6 + (5*5)(6*6*6) + (5*5*5)/(6*6*6*6) = (216 + 180 + 150 +75)/1296 = 47.9%.
    Almost half the time. That is more than enough to reinforce the myth especially since the times a 7 doesn't show aren't noted like when the myth has outcome reinforce myth.

    60 hours is a small sampling so even if you did all the extra to eliminate confirmational bias, what is the expected amount of these clumps and what is the SD for this event over that time frame. I am sure it is well within the statistical expectation and unremarkable.
    Quote Originally Posted by miadebaba View Post
    But the way I have been losing recently is very different from my previous experience which is several years. I mean for the past two months I literally spent time studying the cards in each shoe and they were all like that. Because of the pattern/grouping, I lost much much more quickly even when the count was pretty much neutral, like slowly eating away the money
    Welcome to the crazy swings inherent to blackjack. It sounds like you were long overdue to experience this. No matter how strong the counting system you use you will hit periodic losing periods. A literal pro like KJ has had some ridiculously long losing periods. Most of us look at how we can improve our decisions and game selection to minimize this. It may not be why you experienced tough results but it will help future performance but the ploppy minded try to figure out how the casino is cheating them when they experience normal downswings that are inevitable if you play long enough. Then the worst thing can happen, you start figuring ways to change optimal play to deal with the imaginary threat causing the adjustment to lower your EV rather than having your study on finding your own weaknesses improve your EV.
    Quote Originally Posted by miadebaba View Post
    I can distinguish if the cards are randomly distributed or they are grouped in similar values.
    Every possible deck composition is an equal part of what is random. No deck composition exists that is not an equal part of the whole of what is random than any other composition. Translated the odds of the cards coming out sorted by rank and suit are the same as the odds of any other distribution that is defined by rank and suit. You just see it as an odd distribution. This illustrates why once you look for a distribution its occurrence is given more significance.

    I make a lot of money off the cards being clumped. If they weren't counting wouldn't work. If the casino wanted to cheat a counter they would make sure the RC never got very positive. That would make a counter be almost a flat better and kill all the advantage from betting correlation. In shoe games that is were most of your advantage comes from.

    Look at the Genius's clumps and what you would need to know to determine if the clumping was more than random predicts:
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Group 1: {2,3,4} x 6/13, face cards x 5/13, other cards x 2/13 (face card rich clump)
    What are the odds that you would see this 13 card clump. What is the standard deviation for the odds?
    What are the odds of the clump lasting more than 1 cycle and the standard deviation.?
    How often do you see this clump ?
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Group 2: {7,8,9} x 6/13, face cards x 3/13, other cards x 4/13 (face card poor clump)
    Another 13 card clump with the same questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Group 3: {A} x 1/3, face cards x 2/13, other cards x 1/2 (face card poor ace rich clump)
    The least common denominator for this clump is 78 cards so to keep the ratios pure you need a 78 card clump. Of course he wasn't talking about that.
    The same types of questions need to be asked to show significance.
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Group 4: {5} x 1/3, face cards x 1/3 or 1/6, other cards x 1/3 or 1/2
    This clump has two different clumps as one clump. The least common denominator is 6 cards for both clumps. One clump has 2 T's and 2 other cards in the 6 cards while the other has 1 T and 3 other cards. What are the odds that any of these while be the next 6 cards or a multiple of 6 cards? What is the standard deviation for these frequency of occurrences?
    Quote Originally Posted by BJGenius007 View Post
    Group 5: {6} x 1/3, face cards x 1/2, other cards x 1/6 (face card rich)
    Another 6 card clump.
    The same applies.

    Then with that all said how different fro the defined clumps can the sequence of cards be to be perceived as the said clump when it is actually not the exact specified clump? What is the standard deviation of this undefined clump?
    When you get to this final statement you need to see how many standard deviations off expectation your results are to seeing from the expected distribution. Remember standard deviation is relative to sample size and not a constant. It is an exponential function proportional to the square root of the sample size; eg:
    In a sim at 100 hands HILO has an EV of 50.32 and a SD of 39.248 but the 1 hand SD is 3.9248. It is not the same SD or the same SD/hand. It is the SD of 1 hand times the square root of the number of hands in the sample size. 100 times the sample size has 10 times the standard deviation. 10 is the square root of 100.

    How does your observation of clumping stack up to the expectation and standard deviation for your sample size? You are expected to perceive a higher frequency once the event changes in your mind from part of the norm to something odd to watch for and take note of. That is confirmation bias and almost everyone would be guilty of the same.

  5. #44
    Senior Member Emeritus Sonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    174


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    I do not see how this is legal. Shuffling away the good counts, while playing through the bad counts, IS changing the outcome of the game, which is supposed to be illegal.
    It could be argued that shuffle trackers do the same thing. By intentionally cutting the bad cards out of play they are "shorting" the deck. You might even go so far as to say that it "Alters the normal criteria of random selection, which affects the operation of a game or which determines the outcome of a game."

    Now I'm not saying that I agree with that opinion, but APs often have little to win and a lot to lose by initiating such legal actions. That's how casinos are able to get away with a lot of their illegal behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    I know Bob N has said on occasion, that he also believes this would not stand a challenge if one was ever made.
    He has also opined that playing the turn (can we finally stop calling it edge sorting?) is illegal. And I'm SURE he could back that up in a courtroom.

    Ken Uston thought that the casino's exclusion of skilled players should be illegal. I agree, but I disagree that it should have been tested in court.

    Although APs have a long way to go in our fight for civil rights, I think it could be dangerous to open the Pandora's box of legal scrutiny to specific AP techniques. Let them shuffle up on us if they catch us. It'll just encourage us to find ways to not get caught, or to use that shuffle to our advantage. You can beat them in court or you can beat them at the tables. Choose wisely. Your decision will affect many other APs.

    -Sonny-

  6. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Well said Sonny. Uston's win in NJ courts ended up being a loss for APs. Casinos now had to find ways to make the game unappealing to APs in general since they couldn't bar them on an individual basis. Nothing good came of this. One could argue it was the beginning of the end of the great conditions of old. I think that is a stretch but it certainly contributed to the same.

    the law of unintended consequences demands you see a bigger pcture when trying to effect change to your advantage. Many times you just make things worse. You see it in government, business and the AP world.
    Last edited by Three; 09-19-2014 at 09:13 AM.

  7. #46


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tthree View Post
    One could argue it was the beginning of the end of the great conditions of old.
    One could argue that, but one could be wrong

    Listen to the latest GWAE podcast ( http://www.slot-machine-resource.com...sts/tanner.mp3 ) I found it particularly interesting where Harrahs concluded that gamblers cannot tell the difference between loose and tight slots, so they abandoned plans to loosen them and advertise it. Instead, they tightened. Same can be extrapolated to all the 6:5 nonsense. As long as the players keep coming, tighten, tighten. Why not? Perhaps Harrahs should simply declare a player BJ an automatic loss and just be done with their ratcheting technique of increasing HE.

  8. #47


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by KJ View Post
    Totally agree, bjarg. I actually responded to this thread last night with a lengthy post, but then deleted, figuring 'why bother'. Conspirators will be conspirators. They think everyone is out to get them.

    The fact isn't whether an ASM can be programed to sort the cards, I am sure it could be. The issue is that doing so would be illegal in every jurisdiction that I know of. And the price would be high. Not only the fine involved, but a cheating accusation costing the publics confidence in a fair game, would be a fatal or near fatal blow for most casinos.

    What about machines? They are all computers now. Does anyone think a video poker machine couldn't be programed to not hit a Royal flush? Of course it could. It would be illegal, but easily done. The casino industry just doesn't need to do these things and take this risk. They have sizable built in advantages and they legally tweak or change rules for even larger advantageous. No company is going to risk fine, license and reputation doing this.

    The only possibility is a rouge employee or two at some small casino or possibly some casino where over sight and regulation is lax. (Indian Casinos) But any talk of Harrah's doing this as the OP suggested is goofy. It's just a case of some player losing and then jumping to conclusions based on a very small sample size. Then the 'conspirators' run with it.



    Thank you KJ for replying. Maybe my experience over the past two months is just another disappointing losing streak. I guess the way that those cards were drawn just stuck to my head that I kept assuring myself that there was a pattern. Anyway, just got back from casino and lost 1600. Lost almost all my big bets in the last shoe when true count hit 5+ and never went down. Maybe it's the time of the year for me to lose. I had a losing streak this time last year too. I am still 2sd+ this year but yeah losing streaks is not good feeling. Just hope no more dealer magic 6,10,5 or 5,5,a, 5,6,10... When I have my max bet out.....

  9. #48


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Tthree View Post
    Once someone says something is happening you look for it and even though the frequency of occurrence hasn't changed you notice it more than you used to. You believe it is occurring more. At a craps table this is apparent. 11 are said to come in clumps. They come in clumps just as often as any other number but one an 11 follows an 11 it is pointed out reinforces the ploppy superstition. 7 out is said to happen within 4 rolls of the dice going off the table. What are the odds of 7 out in 4 rolls?
    1/6 + 5/6*1/6 + (5*5)(6*6*6) + (5*5*5)/(6*6*6*6) = (216 + 180 + 150 +75)/1296 = 47.9%.
    Almost half the time. That is more than enough to reinforce the myth especially since the times a 7 doesn't show aren't noted like when the myth has outcome reinforce myth.

    60 hours is a small sampling so even if you did all the extra to eliminate confirmational bias, what is the expected amount of these clumps and what is the SD for this event over that time frame. I am sure it is well within the statistical expectation and unremarkable.


    Welcome to the crazy swings inherent to blackjack. It sounds like you were long overdue to experience this. No matter how strong the counting system you use you will hit periodic losing periods. A literal pro like KJ has had some ridiculously long losing periods. Most of us look at how we can improve our decisions and game selection to minimize this. It may not be why you experienced tough results but it will help future performance but the ploppy minded try to figure out how the casino is cheating them when they experience normal downswings that are inevitable if you play long enough. Then the worst thing can happen, you start figuring ways to change optimal play to deal with the imaginary threat causing the adjustment to lower your EV rather than having your study on finding your own weaknesses improve your EV.


    Every possible deck composition is an equal part of what is random. No deck composition exists that is not an equal part of the whole of what is random than any other composition. Translated the odds of the cards coming out sorted by rank and suit are the same as the odds of any other distribution that is defined by rank and suit. You just see it as an odd distribution. This illustrates why once you look for a distribution its occurrence is given more significance.

    I make a lot of money off the cards being clumped. If they weren't counting wouldn't work. If the casino wanted to cheat a counter they would make sure the RC never got very positive. That would make a counter be almost a flat better and kill all the advantage from betting correlation. In shoe games that is were most of your advantage comes from.

    Look at the Genius's clumps and what you would need to know to determine if the clumping was more than random predicts:

    What are the odds that you would see this 13 card clump. What is the standard deviation for the odds?
    What are the odds of the clump lasting more than 1 cycle and the standard deviation.?
    How often do you see this clump ?

    Another 13 card clump with the same questions.

    The least common denominator for this clump is 78 cards so to keep the ratios pure you need a 78 card clump. Of course he wasn't talking about that.
    The same types of questions need to be asked to show significance.

    This clump has two different clumps as one clump. The least common denominator is 6 cards for both clumps. One clump has 2 T's and 2 other cards in the 6 cards while the other has 1 T and 3 other cards. What are the odds that any of these while be the next 6 cards or a multiple of 6 cards? What is the standard deviation for these frequency of occurrences?

    Another 6 card clump.
    The same applies.

    Then with that all said how different fro the defined clumps can the sequence of cards be to be perceived as the said clump when it is actually not the exact specified clump? What is the standard deviation of this undefined clump?
    When you get to this final statement you need to see how many standard deviations off expectation your results are to seeing from the expected distribution. Remember standard deviation is relative to sample size and not a constant. It is an exponential function proportional to the square root of the sample size; eg:
    In a sim at 100 hands HILO has an EV of 50.32 and a SD of 39.248 but the 1 hand SD is 3.9248. It is not the same SD or the same SD/hand. It is the SD of 1 hand times the square root of the number of hands in the sample size. 100 times the sample size has 10 times the standard deviation. 10 is the square root of 100.

    How does your observation of clumping stack up to the expectation and standard deviation for your sample size? You are expected to perceive a higher frequency once the event changes in your mind from part of the norm to something odd to watch for and take note of. That is confirmation bias and almost everyone would be guilty of the same.
    Thanks Tthree for your reply. I think you are right. Maybe I am just overdue for the losing streak. When they come, they hit hard. I had a couple of them in the past, but this year 1st half was really good. Well I guess I ll have to forget about watching the card patterns and face the coming swing...

  10. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    227


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    When you make statements like, "Maybe it's the time of the year for me to lose", or "Maybe I am just overdue for the losing streak", it shows that you still do not quite have your head on straight. These factors do not exist.

  11. #50


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    BJGenius007??? You should change your nickname, confuses people when they see it and nonsense...
    Blackjack will test your soul, your character, and the very fiber of your being.
    Don Schlesinger.

  12. #51


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Man, I lost $100 today. Those damn ASMs! I knew I should've stayed away from those things.

  13. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    One could argue that, but one could be wrong
    Why do you think I worded it that way. It is definitely not cut and dried.
    Quote Originally Posted by 21forme View Post
    I found it particularly interesting where Harrahs concluded that gamblers cannot tell the difference between loose and tight slots, so they abandoned plans to loosen them and advertise it. Instead, they tightened. Same can be extrapolated to all the 6:5 nonsense. As long as the players keep coming, tighten, tighten. Why not? Perhaps Harrahs should simply declare a player BJ an automatic loss and just be done with their ratcheting technique of increasing HE.
    And they are wrong. There are slot mags that rate results which actually depend a lot on who paid the jackpots. I have noticed slots being very deserted lately at the CET properties. If they believed it why do they offer great pay tables for high limit slots? Is it because everyone is losing their stake faster? How do you think that will affect the slot jockeys choices of where to play. Are the places with the great pay tables crowded by coincidence or because the slot players noticed a difference?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. CSM machines
    By vic in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2014, 08:15 AM
  2. sam: shuffle machines
    By sam in forum Blackjack Main
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-16-2011, 08:02 AM
  3. Up on 'em: bj machines, bio-machines
    By Up on 'em in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 04:17 PM
  4. Cynic: BJ machines
    By Cynic in forum Blackjack Beginners
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2005, 03:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.