Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 21 of 21

Thread: Ouchez: What do you players think about

  1. #14
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: No

    > To gain such an advantage, wouldn't the
    > house need to know exactly how many hands
    > will be played on each round for the
    > upcoming shoe?

    I don't think so.

    > For example, if the house
    > knew that only one box would be played, then
    > I understand how the cards could be stacked:
    > the player gets 19, the house 20, etc. But
    > what happens if the player adds another box,
    > or another player joins the table, or a
    > player sits out? How can the house know in
    > advance how to order the cards?

    To get a 100% advantage, the house would have to know everything in advance. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about a few tenths of one percent more or less. You are explaining one difficulty for the programmer who wants to create a bias in a shuffle machine. That's far from a proof that the difficulty is insurmountable.

    I've said enough. Like I say, the proof should be on their side.

    ETF

  2. #15
    Brick Waller
    Guest

    Brick Waller: Impossible

    There's no way a casino can gain 100% control by pre-arranging the shuffle,too many variables exist to make it possible....ploppies spilt,hit,double,etc.etc. in such an unpredictable way, it would render the stacking as useless. Oh yeah,the cut card pleeeeze..just that alone will gaff this stupid kind of cheating software. Any casinos ignorant enough to actually waste time and money searching or trying to use(or invent)this kaca machine will probably soon close anyway...and not from gaming officials,but from mere stupidity.

    I know a few ways casinos could cheat without the software crap but would you really want to talk about it? I surely dont.

    Brick

    > to get a bias. The order of the discards is
    > not random . All you need is software in the
    > machine that transforms the biases in the
    > discards into biases that favor the house.
    > And the machines have 100% control of the
    > interlacing. Ie. 100% control of where every
    > card will land in relation to its original
    > position. With millions in R&D, it could be
    > a bias that couldn't possibly be exploited
    > by the other side.

    > I don't know what you mean by that. I don't
    > think the question is even addressed in any
    > statute or gaming reg. All they have to do
    > is keep it out of the manuals and
    > promotions, to avoid a public relations
    > scandal that might lead to new regulations.
    > Just tell the salemen to keep it word of
    > mouth.

    > I don't have proof that they are doing this,
    > but I think the proof should be on the other
    > side.

    > ETF

  3. #16
    alienated
    Guest

    alienated: Re: Impossible

    I think ET Fan is right about the theoretical possibility of shuffle machines being designed to increase the house edge. You are questioning the possibility of basically gaining 100% control, but ET Fan is talking only in terms of fractions of a percent shifts in probabilities. The technological know-how is certainly there to influence outcomes. To take one of the simplest of examples, CSMs that are commonly used possess a sensor to recognise cards. These are ostensibly there to notice marked cards, but it would obviously be possible to create a bias in the cards that were selected for play. Another simple example: One suggested procedure for using this same CSM is for the dealer to deal out roughly 3/4 of a deck before putting cards back in to the machine. This will create a kind of 'cut card effect', given that rounds with lots of small cards will tend to create a 3/4-deck discard pile quicker than rounds with lots of big cards. Dealers who try to 'help' their employer can also exacerbate this effect by replacing cards quicker when a lot of small cards come out (say, when the discard pile is half a deck in size) and letting the discard pile grow bigger when lots of big cards come out. In fact, if big cards come out first, so that they are on the bottom of the discard pile, and the dealer allows the discard pile to grow beyond about 1 deck, they will only take the top 3/4 deck or so to insert back in the machine (because there are too many discards to insert back all at once).

    My advice to a noncounting basic strategist who plays against CSMs is that they should be watchful about the procedures followed by the dealer in reinserting cards in the machine. Best is if the dealer always deals a fixed number of rounds before reinsertion.

    Regarding noncontinuous shufflers (ASMs), I believe ET Fan's suspicions are valid; i.e. it is possible that there could be some small increase in house edge achieved by exploitation of the discard procedure. Note that it is not true to suggest that all regularities created by discard procedures are eliminated simply because of the number of boxes changing and players' strategy decisions (although this was certainly my first gut instinct). For example, if 1, 2, 3, or 5 boxes are open, rounds will commence *on average* at the same point in the deck or shoe every 32.4 (theoretical) cards. (As a minor aside, this brings to mind Ian Andersen's observation in _Burning the Tables in Las Vegas_ that 4 is an 'unlucky' number for some Asians.) More generally there are various regularities created by the discard procedure.

    My own observations with the shuffle machines I have confronted - both CSMs and ASMs - is that they are designed to achieve what is regarded as a 'well shuffled' deck or shoe with maximum possible simplicity in the machine's procedure. (The companies sometimes claim 'random' shuffles are achieved, but this is either glossing over finer points to reassure their chief customers, the casinos, or an honest misunderstanding of the meaning of the term 'random' - my money is on the former. Nevertheless, in most respects, the amount of mixing compares favourably with human shuffles.) I believe mechanical simplicity is of critical concern because it reduces the likelihood of breakdown, card jams, damage to cards, etc, which would defeat one of the main aims - time saving.

    Finally, regarding the question of why we would want to talk about these possibilities, here are just a few reasons:

    i) straight counters do not want CSMs to grow in popularity, so alerting noncounting players to any dangers may help in this cause (and us discussing the matter can help to determine what, if anything, those dangers might be, so that honest points of objection can be raised);

    ii) many shuffle trackers believe machines are untrackable, so they would also like to see these machines fall out of favor;

    iii) for those who are beating some of these machines, there are still procedural things that can have adverse effects (eg, 'preferential reinsertion' of cards into CSMs). Raising player awareness of such dangers can make it more uncomfortable for a dealer who adopts these dubious practices (due to complaints, abuse, etc, from regular gamblers who might notice the inconsistencies in procedure and become suspicious).

  4. #17
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: At the present time it is clear to

    > I think ET Fan is right about the
    > theoretical possibility of shuffle machines
    > being designed to increase the house edge.
    > You are questioning the possibility of
    > basically gaining 100% control, but ET Fan
    > is talking only in terms of fractions of a
    > percent shifts in probabilities. The
    > technological know-how is certainly there to
    > influence outcomes. To take one of the
    > simplest of examples, CSMs that are commonly
    > used possess a sensor to recognise cards.
    > These are ostensibly there to notice marked
    > cards, but it would obviously be possible to
    > create a bias in the cards that were
    > selected for play. Another simple example:
    > One suggested procedure for using this same
    > CSM is for the dealer to deal out roughly
    > 3/4 of a deck before putting cards back in
    > to the machine. This will create a kind of
    > 'cut card effect', given that rounds with
    > lots of small cards will tend to create a
    > 3/4-deck discard pile quicker than rounds
    > with lots of big cards. Dealers who try to
    > 'help' their employer can also exacerbate
    > this effect by replacing cards quicker when
    > a lot of small cards come out (say, when the
    > discard pile is half a deck in size) and
    > letting the discard pile grow bigger when
    > lots of big cards come out. In fact, if big
    > cards come out first, so that they are on
    > the bottom of the discard pile, and the
    > dealer allows the discard pile to grow
    > beyond about 1 deck, they will only take the
    > top 3/4 deck or so to insert back in the
    > machine (because there are too many discards
    > to insert back all at once).

    > My advice to a noncounting basic strategist
    > who plays against CSMs is that they should
    > be watchful about the procedures followed by
    > the dealer in reinserting cards in the
    > machine. Best is if the dealer always deals
    > a fixed number of rounds before reinsertion.

    > Regarding noncontinuous shufflers (ASMs), I
    > believe ET Fan's suspicions are valid; i.e.
    > it is possible that there could be some
    > small increase in house edge achieved by
    > exploitation of the discard procedure. Note
    > that it is not true to suggest that all
    > regularities created by discard procedures
    > are eliminated simply because of the number
    > of boxes changing and players' strategy
    > decisions (although this was certainly my
    > first gut instinct). For example, if 1, 2,
    > 3, or 5 boxes are open, rounds will commence
    > *on average* at the same point in the deck
    > or shoe every 32.4 (theoretical) cards. (As
    > a minor aside, this brings to mind Ian
    > Andersen's observation in _Burning the
    > Tables in Las Vegas_ that 4 is an 'unlucky'
    > number for some Asians.) More generally
    > there are various regularities created by
    > the discard procedure.

    > My own observations with the shuffle
    > machines I have confronted - both CSMs and
    > ASMs - is that they are designed to achieve
    > what is regarded as a 'well shuffled' deck
    > or shoe with maximum possible simplicity in
    > the machine's procedure. (The companies
    > sometimes claim 'random' shuffles are
    > achieved, but this is either glossing over
    > finer points to reassure their chief
    > customers, the casinos, or an honest
    > misunderstanding of the meaning of the term
    > 'random' - my money is on the former.
    > Nevertheless, in most respects, the amount
    > of mixing compares favourably with human
    > shuffles.) I believe mechanical simplicity
    > is of critical concern because it reduces
    > the likelihood of breakdown, card jams,
    > damage to cards, etc, which would defeat one
    > of the main aims - time saving.

    > Finally, regarding the question of why we
    > would want to talk about these
    > possibilities, here are just a few reasons:

    > i) straight counters do not want CSMs to
    > grow in popularity, so alerting noncounting
    > players to any dangers may help in this
    > cause (and us discussing the matter can help
    > to determine what, if anything, those
    > dangers might be, so that honest points of
    > objection can be raised);

    > ii) many shuffle trackers believe machines
    > are untrackable, so they would also like to
    > see these machines fall out of favor;

    > iii) for those who are beating some of these
    > machines, there are still procedural things
    > that can have adverse effects (eg,
    > 'preferential reinsertion' of cards into
    > CSMs). Raising player awareness of such
    > dangers can make it more uncomfortable for a
    > dealer who adopts these dubious practices
    > (due to complaints, abuse, etc, from regular
    > gamblers who might notice the
    > inconsistencies in procedure and become
    > suspicious).

    that shuffle machines are in use so the casino can get more hands per hour and not have to be concerned over the dealers shuffle, or trackers. The downside to casinos is the high down time and mechanical problems with most, if not all, machines.

    I have found that with many machines they are very predictable as to staying positive or negative for several rounds and even as to what spots may receive a large number of BJ's for several rounds, if not more. I do not believe they are anything to fear, especially in DD games as they can actually give you the benefit of taking advantage of 2 different packs, sorta like playing two tables one after another all session. Of course you can get more hands per hour, but at times I do like the break of a hand shuffle as fatigue begins to take effect.

    Regards,
    Ouchez.

  5. #18
    MrPill
    Guest

    MrPill: DD CSM?

    Ouchez,

    From above you wrote on CSM:
    > I do not believe they are anything to fear,
    > especially in DD games as they can actually
    > give you the benefit of taking advantage of
    > 2 different packs, sorta like playing two
    > tables one after another all session.

    Where have you seen a two deck CSM? Due to the latency inherent to the machines (at least earlier models) this could be an exploitable situation.

    A couple years back I was doing such an experiment playing a CSM 5 deck heads up to see how far behind the machine got for possible ways to exploit it. It had cards stacked in it's feed hopper on top of the CSM and more in the discard tray. I estimated a little more than one deck was out of the machine, before the dealer finally said he needed to wait for it to catch up.

    Now if you were able to count this and determine when this "slug" waiting to get back in was full of low cards you could gain an advantage. But in a 5 deck CSM this would be marginal.

    I'm sure you can imagine what a full table of "fast" AP's could do to a 2 deck CSM.

    Pill

  6. #19
    Brick Waller
    Guest

    Brick Waller: terms of fractions?

    > I think ET Fan is right about the
    > theoretical possibility of shuffle machines
    > being designed to increase the house edge.
    > You are questioning the possibility of
    > basically gaining 100% control, but ET Fan
    > is talking only in terms of fractions of a
    > percent shifts in probabilities.

    Et says absolutely nothing about "terms of fractions". He's claiming discards can be pre-arranged so casinos will have 100% control of the game. This is impossible. You seem to think he's talking about increasing house edge 100%, as in,.5% to 1%,etc.etc...this is not the case.

    Having complete control(100%) over a game means any outcome can be manipulated in advance. For example, a dealer picks up coins and flips them after a player calls heads or tails. If player calls tails, dealer flips a bogus coin with heads on both sides. If heads is called he flips the tails bogus coin. As you can easily see,the dealer has "100%" control of this cheating game.

    > The technological know-how is certainly there to influence outcomes. To take one of the
    > simplest of examples, CSMs that are commonly
    > used possess a sensor to recognise cards.
    > These are ostensibly there to notice marked
    > cards, but it would obviously be possible to
    > create a bias in the cards that were
    > selected for play.

    I think everyone knows that a bias can be created in many of the simpliest ways,even a shuffle tracker can create a bias,but this certainly does not mean I have 100% control over the game,does it?

    > Finally, regarding the question of why we
    > would want to talk about these
    > possibilities, here are just a few reasons:

    Sure it's good to say CSM's,6/5,and bad rules suck so dont play them,I agree,but is this really the same as implying,inventing,imagining,creating,dicovering,a nd discussing ways casinos can benefit from a new age of techno-cheating!?

    We have nothing to gain by this thread. Sometimes blackjack is a priority before dreaming up and trying to flaunt wisdom. I've been beating shuffle machines for 10 years. Maybe they actually cheat in the players favor.)))

    Brick

  7. #20
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: Didn't mean that..

    > Ouchez,

    > From above you wrote on CSM:

    > Where have you seen a two deck CSM? Due to
    > the latency inherent to the machines (at
    > least earlier models) this could be an
    > exploitable situation.

    > A couple years back I was doing such an
    > experiment playing a CSM 5 deck heads up to
    > see how far behind the machine got for
    > possible ways to exploit it. It had cards
    > stacked in it's feed hopper on top of the
    > CSM and more in the discard tray. I
    > estimated a little more than one deck was
    > out of the machine, before the dealer
    > finally said he needed to wait for it to
    > catch up.

    > Now if you were able to count this and
    > determine when this "slug" waiting
    > to get back in was full of low cards you
    > could gain an advantage. But in a 5 deck CSM
    > this would be marginal.

    > I'm sure you can imagine what a full table
    > of "fast" AP's could do to a 2
    > deck CSM.

    > Pill

    I never play CSM, never. Never seen a DD CSM.

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Ouchez.

  8. #21
    ET Fan
    Guest

    ET Fan: No, you're misreading

    > Et says absolutely nothing about "terms
    > of fractions". He's claiming discards
    > can be pre-arranged so casinos will have
    > 100% control of the game.

    I never said the casino could get "100% control of the game. I said:

    "... the machines have 100% control of the interlacing. Ie. 100% control of where every card will land in relation to its original position."

    That's a very different thing.

    > This is
    > impossible. You seem to think he's talking
    > about increasing house edge 100%, as in,.5%
    > to 1%,etc.etc...this is not the case.

    You're right. I doubt the delta would be as large as 0.5%

    > implying,inventing,imagining,creating,dicovering,
    > and discussing ways casinos can benefit from a
    > new age of techno-cheating!?

    Who said anything about cheating? There is no rule that guarantees anything about the randomness of any shuffle. (Trackers are very glad of that!)

    > We have nothing to gain by this thread.

    Finally there's something we can agree on.

    ETF

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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.