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

[mofungoo]

You're the one making claims - I'm stating facts.

Another fact: the less a person knows, the more possible the impossible seems. Definition: impossible means "it can't happen". A shuffle machine is designed to randomize the cards. There is a feature that detects whether any cards are missing, or if there are extra cards in the deck(s). Some models can put the deck(s) back in new card order. That's it. I wish I could find a casino that deals cards in new card order, as I would know the dealer's hole card and the next card to be dealt every time.

[utbabya]

You're the one making claims - I'm stating facts.

Nope, without concrete proof each individual CSM box is just a blackbox to you and me.

Your trust comes from regulation alone.

The fact that they have OCR and sorting ability makes the point of breakage at the bit in the memory where they store the algorithm.

[Joss]

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.

We're talking about CSMs, there are no counters to defeat. The risks involved in rigging a machine have already been laid out. The only gain would be to screw the casino's ideal customers, which makes no sense for anyone.

Trust comes from the fact that there is no motive to cheat this way.

[MJGolf]

Is it possible? I thought with the gravity feed, that once cards inserted and in "wheels or compartments", whatever they are called, then other than re-inserting the cards, no other act upon the 5-6 decks inside was possible? I also thought that the determination of missing or extra cards only occurred at beginning insertion, shuffle, so that the pit boss knew that the decks were not missing any cards or extra cards had been inserted. But I am no engineer. Here is a pic of the inside. Since the cards are grouped in 12 or 16 together or something to that effect, wouldn't the play of the table......the number of players............etc., affect any attempt to "sort the cards to cheat the players"? Up to you smarter engineers to determine.

Link: cardshark-online.blogspot.com/2009/11/casino-equipment-shufflemaster-one2six.html



Of course nothing on Bally's website (who purchased Shufflemaster late last year) states anything whatsoever about "ordering" the cards. But it's a very limited website, too.

I did see one used machine on sale at ebay, current auction price $2100; still pending. If anyone wants to invest........LOL

[utbabya]

We're talking about CSMs, there are no counters to defeat. The risks involved in rigging a machine have already been laid out. The only gain would be to screw the casino's ideal customers, which makes no sense for anyone.

Trust comes from the fact that there is no motive to cheat this way.

Only if they can proof that they're screwed, without the ability to do that they HAVE to believe it's randomness, or even worse, believing there's certain pattern you can break and make it beatable. Pattern finding is human nature for survival.

And the motivation is to make MORE money? Nobody hates more money right? If I'm operating a casino (and I'm the kind of person who would beat the crap out of card counters), these people are a constant stream of fixed income, just like slot customers. Yes they have the edge already, but that's not for "guaranteed"....
So it depends on risk of getting caught, the risk involved can really vary... off the top of my head, the only real risk I would concern about is lower paid employees leaking information...

While I'm being a devil advocate, why depend on probability when you can have full control? With full control the possibilities are limitless, different win/loss pattern for different behaviour type, make full use of Skinner's operant conditioning, haven't you seen the crazy rat? hehe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-DgV2vixSo



Again, without proof, just treat it as a conspiracy theory. Even in this case, they are your enemy in the sense it is your money vs their money, it is always a good idea to maintain healthy skepticism.


On technical feasibility, with the ability to sort it back into fresh it IS already possible. Maybe it can't be changed in the middle of 16 cards, but the next batch can definitely be determined. Whether they can do it officially or not does not matter, we all know how secure 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_en...ey_controversy

Edit:
Well if the sorting feature doesn't exist then all claims are obviously much less probable since you've to inject a sorting feature in it to replace the RND placement of cards. But then again they specifically say that it is not entirely random, that means some operations are already involved, which reduce the complexity of injecting sorting code.

Unless not being able to sort is indeed a hardware limit. I wonder if Bally has tried to dump out the software in it.

[utbabya]

I should elaborate to make sure it's not hurting the feeling of any person here happen to have the visibility to ensure it is not happening in the casino they overlook.

What I am talking about here can happen per casino or even per area owner. I've got my informant, but I am also ready to refute it if the hardware does not allow sorting.
But who knows, regulators can be under surveillance or bought, so they can even pull off big changes to the hardware. When billions are involved a lot of things can happen, after Madoff and the NSA the fine line between skepitism and paranoid has been pushed back a lot.

Merely my opinion, at least try to avoid the games in Macau.

[Norm]

You're getting into voodoo-land here. AP is about math, not wild speculation. If you have inside evidence of actual cheating -- it is your duty to report it to the proper authorities. Bringing Madoff and the NSA into this discussion is a bit silly. There is nothing new about investment scams or spying. They both go back millennia.

[utbabya]

You're getting into voodoo-land here. AP is about math, not wild speculation. If you have inside evidence of actual cheating -- it is your duty to report it to the proper authorities. Bringing Madoff and the NSA into this discussion is a bit silly. There is nothing new about investment scams or spying. They both go back millennia.

True, too much unverified claims. Guess I should just stick to the maths and machine itself.
Now that I'm really interested in the content of the software. I'm no electronic engineer, but pretty sure there's interface or JTAG on the circuit board to dump it out, purely out curiosity, don't think it's worth the effort.

[mofungoo]

It might be interesting to note that it takes a while to put the deck(s) into new card order, much longer than the normal operational cycle. It would be noticed and would arouse suspicion. Have you seen anything like that happen?

[utbabya]

It might be interesting to note that it takes a while to put the deck(s) into new card order, much longer than the normal operational cycle. It would be noticed and would arouse suspicion. Have you seen anything like that happen?

Nope, no long shuffling cycle.
Creating a fixed batch or two is much faster. O(312 * log 312) vs O(16 * log 16)

I wonder how the sorting is physically done tho, most likely there is a mechanism to pick any card out of any compartment in the wheel.
Or there is a buffer compartment somewhere?

[utbabya]

Consider there is a limited physical buffer to manoeuvre the cards the real difference should be much larger.

Pick out such subset of cards out from known positions should be much simpler than O(16 * log 16) too.

*Wait.. fresh sequence shouldn't take that long either. It depends on the physical implementation.
Mind telling me how long does it take for that?