Golden Nugget pays up on un-shuffled game

Cards were in a preset pattern that is only known by the card company but not in sequential order. That sounds like these pre-shuffled shoes are not designed to be random. I am not sure how they could stack a casino advantage higher than normal since the players can bet both sides but it sounds fishy. It is more likely designed for cheating by players. Obviously you don't want to cheat in the way these people played. You could win modest amounts forever throwing in some losses for appearances but when they did this the golden goose was killed. Probably someone shared the info with a greedy idiot that killed the scam. Who knows how long it has been going on.

You have to give Fertitta kudos. The good will and loyalty he will get from the players is worth a lot. Hard to say if it is worth what they lost, but very well could be. The right move for sure in my opinion. And if they really want to recoup something, it should be from the card manufacturer as indicated. I agree, the players did nothing wrong, the card manufacturer did do something wrong.

Originally Posted by Tthree

Cards were in a preset pattern that is only known by the card company but not in sequential order. That sounds like these pre-shuffled shoes are not designed to be random. I am not sure how they could stack a casino advantage higher than normal since the players can bet both sides but it sounds fishy. It is more likely designed for cheating by players. Obviously you don't want to cheat in the way these people played. You could win modest amounts forever throwing in some losses for appearances but when they did this the golden goose was killed. Probably someone shared the info with a greedy idiot that killed the scam. Who knows how long it has been going on.

If the cards were in a non-sequential, yet predetermined order, as the article says, then how would the players easily see the pattern and be confident enough to take advantage of it to the tune of raising their bets from $10 to $5,000? The only way I would do that would be if the cards were obviously in 2, 3, 4, 5 (sequential order), unless they're trying to say that baccarat players are all familiar with this predetermined order. I've never heard of anything like that before. I think there is still more to this than meets the eye. Any comment?

Originally Posted by Aslan

If the cards were in a non-sequential, yet predetermined order, as the article says, then how would the players easily see the pattern and be confident enough to take advantage of it to the tune of raising their bets from $10 to $5,000? The only way I would do that would be if the cards were obviously in 2, 3, 4, 5 (sequential order), unless they're trying to say that baccarat players are all familiar with this predetermined order. I've never heard of anything like that before. I think there is still more to this than meets the eye. Any comment?

I can only assume because many players superstitiously record the cards in baccarat. Would make it easy to notice the sequence for almost anybody.

Probably one of the few times this was actually useful to someone.

I think they said it was 4 shoes of "preshuffled cards". All would have been in the same order.

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Otherwise, someone please speculate as to how and what knd of betting would have taken $10 units and parlayed into over 1M?

Cypher strands

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Ordinary punters would never know how to play the cards anyway. It would have to be a set-up, even an inside job?
Otherwise, someone please speculate as to how and what knd of betting would have taken $10 units and parlayed into over 1M?
How many hours did they play? One shoe? They just happened to be super-aggressive parlay-type punters? And the pre-set order of the cards favored... bank?/player?

Does this pass the smell test for anyone?*

*Reminds me of that Nathan Tilton story.
(I'm just messin with you mate errr Nate! )

One account I read said that there were only 41 rounds. I don't know how many were playing simultaneously, but that would mean an average of $36,600 approx per round which would mean $4,575 per player per round with 8 players. Eh, nary an amateur in the crowd. It's like they knew it was coming and were prepared with lots of cash to get them started.

But there may have been a lot more players-- I don't know the limit of players for mini-bac-- and that would explain how enough players got up to house limit soon enough to rack up $1.5 million in 41 rounds.

If I had to guess, I'd say someone knew it was coming (maybe an employee had discovered the supplier error (the supplier admitted they had made a mistake) and took advantage of it with his friends), but whatever the details, like you say, it does not pass the smell test.

Strangely, I have not heard of any firings as happened in the Taj event in December. Even if the unshuffled shoe was not an inside job, what of the ineptness of the pit and floor persons who did not close down the game (paying a fine if necessary), or "reshuffle" the cards, or bring in a new shoe (first washing the cards) to protect the house's interest for what had all the earmarks of NJ code 40 (robbery in progress)? The fact that no one was fired (to my knowledge) is strange indeed. I don't want to speculate any more than that.

If your average baccarat player knew the exact sequence of the cards, even they can figure out if the next hand is a player or bank win or a tie. In a case like this, a $5000 bet, even for an average player, would not be something mind boggling. Heck, kind of sounds like a pittance really when you have a EV of +95%/100% or +800% with no variance

Indeed, Baccarat is an extremely simple game. And, as Gamblor says, some people record hands. Some Baccarat players spend their lives looking for patterns that aren’t there. On the one day the patterns repeated, they were ready. It would have been difficult for the casino to have figured this out any more quickly. If the casino has any sense at all; they will give these guys the top suite in the Hotel for a week filled with whatever they desire. They will lose it back.

Of course if they had any sense, they would have done that immediately instead of going to court. If I was a competitor; I’d steal these customers.

Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash

The game has 78 to 82 hands per shoe.

So, if the newspaper article that said they played 41 rounds is accurate, it means they only played half a shoe?

Originally Posted by Norm

Of course if they had any sense, they would have done that immediately instead of going to court.

Don't you think they may have been stalling for time to see if they could discover any foul play before they paid out that last million?

Also, if it were so easy for the players to see that the patterns continued to reappear, it should have been just as easy for the dealer, the pit, and the trained eye of the surveillance EITS to detect it, long before $1.5 million was lost. In fact, reports say that the staff was looking at the game, where suddenly everyone began betting max bet ($5,000) and winning every hand, and did nothing but try to detect cheating. Taking a fine (if that would be levied by the gaming authorities) by closing down the game, would have protected the house interest. I doubt the closing down of the game would receive much attention in the news, since no large amount would have been won or lost at that point-- only a few disgruntled players.

A half-way astute player should notice before the casino. Players watch the cards. The casino spends most of its time watching the cash, chips and dealers, as that is where they usually have problems. Dealer errors are common. This particular problem was nearly unique. Who knows how long it would have continued had it been milked.

Except for mis-deals and mis-pays, mistakes by the house that favor the player should be allowed to stand, whereas mistakes by the house that favor the house should be corrected. I think this is correct in principle, since the game is entirely controlled by the house.

For example, if it were discovered after players had won big playing blackjack that the house had inadvertently put a shoe into play that had been intended for a class on "coolers," the player wins should be allowed to stand. If, OTOH, it were discovered after players had lost big that the house had inadvertently put a shoe into play that had been intended for a class on "reverse coolers," the player losses should be reimbursed. The players have a right to a fair shuffle, however, they may forgo that right if it's to their advantage.

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Ordinary punters would never know how to play the cards anyway. It would have to be a set-up, even an inside job?
Otherwise, someone please speculate as to how and what knd of betting would have taken $10 units and parlayed into over 1M?
How many hours did they play? One shoe? They just happened to be super-aggressive parlay-type punters? And the pre-set order of the cards favored... bank?/player?

Does this pass the smell test for anyone?*

*Reminds me of that Nathan Tilton story.
(I'm just messin with you mate errr Nate! )

Sounds fishy. What kind of $10 players have $5,000+ to start firing away?

PS. ZG I'm more than happy to pass along your thoughts to Nathaniel! Always happy to bust his balls.

Nobody said casinos were smart. They are usually angry, arrogant, and vindictive which explains why Fertitta didn't just pay the winners off and hope they lost the money back quickly.

This case is going to be a classic example of how not to handle a situation like this in the future and few if any casinos will learn from this example.