Is this statement true in your opinion? "The ability to place a card (**) anywhere in the deck assures that the deck is randomized adequately."
** (use just one card for your answer, but maybe more if you want to expand on this one statement if you like)
bfb
> Is this statement true in your opinion? "The
> ability to place a card (**) anywhere in the deck
> assures that the deck is randomized adequately."
> ** (use just one card for your answer, but maybe more
> if you want to expand on this one statement if you
> like)
Sorry, but I'm not following. Suppose you have this ability, but for ONE card only! That would make no sense. Did you actually write what you meant?
Suppose I have the ability to place the ace of spades anywhere in the deck. What does that have to do with randomizing the entire deck? Suppose I have ability to place all 52 cards anywhere in the deck, and I choose to place them in sequential order, by suits. How is that "randomizing"?
Guess I'm not following.
Don
But first, an apology. The statement was not mine and you responded as how I would expect any reasonable person with any clue to respond. I didn't want any filtered response and hopefully Norm and maybe Zenfighter would chime in as well, along with anyone else who has an understanding of what "random" means when it comes to card shuffles.
So, allow me, for the moment to simply say this, I will share the rest (please believe me when I'm saying I'm not being coy...the payoff I think, will be worth it), after hopefully you'll expand on the concept of card shuffles and maybe more specifically, real world casino shuffles.
And FTR, that statement is made in a very interesting document.
thanks
bfb
> But first, an apology. The statement was not mine and
> you responded as how I would expect any reasonable
> person with any clue to respond. I didn't want any
> filtered response and hopefully Norm and maybe
> Zenfighter would chime in as well, along with anyone
> else who has an understanding of what
> "random" means when it comes to card
> shuffles.
> So, allow me, for the moment to simply say this, I
> will share the rest (please believe me when I'm saying
> I'm not being coy...the payoff I think, will be worth
> it), after hopefully you'll expand on the concept of
> card shuffles and maybe more specifically, real world
> casino shuffles.
What is it that you want me to expand on? have you asked a new question?
> And FTR, that statement is made in a very interesting
> document.
For now, I'll take your word for it.
Don
What is random, of course. :-) What constitutes a random shuffle? No need to answer that.
I was hoping to illicit a response somewhat along the following lines: Of course it's not a random shuffle. Even a modern day casino shuffle of a single deck of cards is not random, so why would the relocation of a single card be considered random? Something to that effect, but of course, you didn't do that. Can't blame you and no one else has opined either, although the views on this page are limited.
The statement at issue is actually included in one of Shuffle Master's patents, on the MD2 to be exact. Why they would include that is a mystery, at least to me, but there it is. I can post a link if you'd like.
Is there any possible reason that you can think of, for why they felt it important to include that in their approved patent of a shuffle machine?
thanks
bfb
"The ability to place a card anywhere in the deck assures that the deck is randomized adequately."
bfbagain,
I'd guess that what Shuffle Master was trying to say is that the ability of their machine to produce a shuffle for which any given card, say the Ace of Spades, can appear in any location in the shuffled deck, ensures that the shuffling process produces a random arrangement.
Consider the converse: first, assume that when you placed the deck in the machine, the top card was the Ace of Spades. Now if you knew that, because of the shuffling process in the machine, the chance that the Ace of Spades would emerge as the fifth card in the shuffled deck was identically zero, then you would conclude that the shuffling process is NOT random.
Does this help explain the statement?
In fact, to be completely random, their shuffling process would have to ensure that the Ace of Spades has
exactly 1 chance in 52 of ending up as the first card,
exactly 1 chance in 52 of ending up as the second card,
exactly 1 chance in 52 of ending up as the third card,
etc.
Dog Hand
... 100% with this analysis and would have written something strikingly similar if you hadn't beaten me to it. :-)
I believe it was ShuffleMaster's intention to convey that very information even if, like most people, they were semi-literate in expressing their concept.
Don
Yes, that does appear to be what you'd expect it might be..., however, I have a slightly different take, at least my cynical side does. :-) I also am waiting for some other people's take on this as well. We'll have to compare notes - with their permission of course. In the meantime, I'd love to hear what your thoughts are on their entire patent.
For your reading pleasure...Enjoy
bfb
Can?t access the patent review on my computer. Maybe a special reader will be necessary to accomplish for this. In any case I did some Google research and found this one:
The MD2 Workstation(TM), a stand-alone workstation that conducts speedy back-of-house deck checking and verification. By combining the multi-tasking capability of the MD2 batch shuffler with proprietary software that counts, reads and verifies every card, the MD2 Workstation produces detailed reports that reveal the accuracy and composition of each deck.
A distinct possibility exist, IMO that these manufactures, while advertising an assured increase in randomness to their customers, its product is carrying a couple of added incorporated features too, so as to enhance the ?fairness? of the deal. More weapons to our friends from the other side, I am afraid.
Their advertise for randomness with the sentence you kindly outlined for us above, is a joke of course. In order to establish that any gaming device produces truly random results, you need to be a qualified statistician or an expert in this specific and difficult stuff.
Scholarship definitions for truly testing of randomness can include things like:
1) A 99% of limits in confidence conducted with a standard test for randomness.
2) A 95% confidence level using chi-squared test and serial correlation test, selected at random.
Moral? One thing is the propaganda and another one reality. And this include obviously, that no human dealer will pass the above test, shuffling a multi-deck shoe with any given standard casinos procedures.
So what? Nothing. Or aren?t you cleaning them with the aid of Carlson?s Omega? :-)
My two cents and a pleasure to have you round here, with all of us.
Zf
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks