[Voodoo? One2Six related, no flame please] Possibility of behaviour manipulation

**UK-21** · 11-30-2014, 11:15 PM

Yes, I'd be interested to know the basis for this claim. They certainly haven't reduced the number of rounds dealt in any given period, wherever I've seen them in use. Losing the two minute or so break every ten to twelve minutes is almost akin to having a vacuum cleaner that never gets switched off.

**mofungoo** · 12-01-2014, 08:03 AM

Every hand the discards are put in the discard tray, then removed and placed into the shuffler. Takes several seconds, multiplied by the number of hands/hr. That could take longer than swapping decks out of an ASM?

**moo321** · 12-01-2014, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

Every hand the discards are put in the discard tray, then removed and placed into the shuffler. Takes several seconds, multiplied by the number of hands/hr. That could take longer than swapping decks out of an ASM?

Yep.

**utbabya** · 12-07-2014, 07:01 AM

Don't you think card value reading and the ability to sort the cards in any sequence smells OJ Simpson? Think about it, with these existing hardware they slipped onto it in plain sight, and with today's technology, flipping a bit or two wirelessly by augmenting the hardware is nothing CSI.

I have received insider information (price is not cheap) that the card sequence can indeed be changed on the fly. Yes those who participate in it need moral justification too, because it's essentially cheating, they do it in the name of "defeating the counters".

As always I'm just another internet guy, so just my $0.2.

**MJGolf** · 12-07-2014, 07:10 AM

I'm sorry; I happen to be in camp that they do NOT use CSM's to cheat. First, once it came to light, just think of the uproar that would ensue. The possible loss of a gambling license (which is no SMALL investment). The adverse media attention. The loss of substantial investment in the machines. And it would be against the computer device law that they themselves promulgated and lobbied for. Wouldn't this ALSO be a criminal act?

**utbabya** · 12-07-2014, 07:14 AM

Yep, all true.

But it is always risk vs reward, if you can kill the person you hate by blinking your eyes and I can assure you can get away with it, would you do it?

**Norm** · 12-07-2014, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by utbabya

Yep, all true.

But it is always risk vs reward, if you can kill the person you hate by blinking your eyes and I can assure you can get away with it, would you do it?

Absolutely NOT. I wouldn't even give him a cold, much less kill him.

**Three** · 12-07-2014, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by utbabya

But it is always risk vs reward, if you can kill the person you hate by blinking your eyes and I can assure you can get away with it, would you do it?

No way. Are you only moral because you are worried about what others think or are you a moral man?

**mofungoo** · 12-07-2014, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by utbabya

Don't you think card value reading and the ability to sort the cards in any sequence smells OJ Simpson? Think about it, with these existing hardware they slipped onto it in plain sight, and with today's technology, flipping a bit or two wirelessly by augmenting the hardware is nothing CSI.

I have received insider information (price is not cheap) that the card sequence can indeed be changed on the fly. Yes those who participate in it need moral justification too, because it's essentially cheating, they do it in the name of "defeating the counters".

This is a textbook example of jumping to a conclusion.

**utbabya** · 12-07-2014, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Norm

Absolutely NOT. I wouldn't even give him a cold, much less kill him.

Alright, context.

How about the cold blooded murder who raped and killed your family.

It is not me, you have to think from the perspective of the kind of people who operate a casino.
Fact: Would you beat the crap out of a card counter if you spot one? (You're not that kind of person)

BTW that's just a movie quote...

Originally Posted by Tthree

No way. Are you only moral because you are worried about what others think or are you a moral man?

And for this... pretty much the answer for everyone is 'kinda both', we don't want to get into lengthy Psychology or Philosophy conversation right?

**utbabya** · 12-07-2014, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

This is a textbook example of jumping to a conclusion.

Yes maybe, I've proof but I would not verify it. So take it with a grant of salt.

But LOOK, logically it is as concrete as the claim that they are NOT cheating.

**mofungoo** · 12-07-2014, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by utbabya

But LOOK, logically it is as concrete as the claim that they are NOT cheating.

And this is a textbook example of "reaching". Kids, don't do this at home.

**utbabya** · 12-07-2014, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by mofungoo

And this is a textbook example of "reaching". Kids, don't do this at home.

Yes discussion can get emotional, sometimes it is not constructive at all, and there is a slight chance that it could be different motivations behind.
And for some reasons, logic often creates haterd, maybe it is a defence of believe system.

I would refrain from continuing meaningless conversation to further degarde the creditbility of this already unverified information.

I just started this and found out the answer the expensive way. Which I would not provide any proof. It is not necessary anyway since the audiences reaching this place already know better than playing on csm even without this.

Edit:
Damn, I am biting it since I've just came up a better way to say it. 1 + 1 = 2 is a mathematical fact. The fact that two unverified claims are equally sound or unsound is a logical fact, we're not reaching anything or proofing anything here mate.