one2six operating with the cover open

[UK-21]

Partly true and partly not. The cards that are put back into the machine are not placed back into play in the random way you may think . . .

Who said the cards are placed back into the machine in a random manner? They go back into the machine in exactly the reverse-order they hit the discard (I've never seen a croup shuffle the discards); the card on the top of the discard is the first to be re-introduced into one of the slots holding less than ten cards on the ferris wheel (as cards are drawn from the bottom of the face-up selection dropped into the entry tray). The question is how that slot is selected. Then there's the issue of how a fully occupied slot is selected to dump it's ten cards onto the exit ramp. Both of these are driven by an algorithm in the firmware, which of course can be upgraded at anytime. As I think it's pretty certain that any batch of cards returned will be broken up across all of the slots in the wheel, subject to each slots' occupancy of course, tracking slugs of high cards will be problematic to say the least. The rest of the points you make are fairly obvious.

Personally I think there are just too many variables in how the whole thing works, and that the method used to reorder the cards in the gadget after they've been reintroduced is sufficient to make tracking them a waste of time. I did read a report once of a place that allowed their dealers to let two to three decks accumulate in the discard before reintroducing them - something that will inevitably provide a player advantage at some point, although I doubt you'll find that at too many places. The most I've ever seen is two rounds (40-45/312 on a full table?) waiting to go back in - clearing the discard every other round seems fairly common.

It is possible to apply an individual count to each successive round played, and add the results together for however many rounds you believe latency exists, and this may be the approach by which the seller of the Dyson on EBay has come up with his 0.4% advantage. There's no secret around this, and in actual fact I've discussed this approach with a fair few people over the last ten years. You'd better have deep pockets if you want to give it a run out though.

Good luck if you elect to pursue this particular endeavour. You'll need it . . . .

[Norm]

I don't think anyone said the cards are placed in the machine in a random manner. But, they aren't placed in the slots in an entirely random manner and they don't exit the machine in an entirely random manner. Clearly slug tracking is out.

[Heisenberg]

I don't think anyone said the cards are placed in the machine in a random manner. But, they aren't placed in the slots in an entirely random manner and they don't exit the machine in an entirely random manner. Clearly slug tracking is out.

Thanks Norm. No one said they were placed into the machine randomly. It's how they come back out that's the point and it's not as random as you imagine. In fact the non-randomness is exploitable to an extent you have not yet grasped. Sure, an edge of 0.4% is small and to make significant returns you need a large bankroll. However, the advantages of having no heat and being allowed to play with any spread you wish can be of greater value than you may imagine. Especially with a team.

[Norm]

In fact the non-randomness is exploitable to an extent you have not yet grasped.

I simmed this years ago.

[Heisenberg]

I simmed this years ago.

Interesting Norm. I'd say this is difficult to sim without all the exact info, which indeed you may have been party to. Or not. When cards are placed back into the machine there is a certain delay before they are played out again. And then there is a specific order for that to happen. Not an exact order but a statistical order which is significant. I have run AI routines (using Tensorflow) after collecting a great deal of data. Sims may or may not be valid in these circumstances.

[Norm]

I believe the sims were run given the correct slotting and de-slotting algorithms for that time. The results were used successfully outside the US. Of course, the 126 software has changed since then.

Incidentally, I keep the Leonard Cohen song you quote on my iPhone.

[Heisenberg]

I believe the sims were run given the correct slotting and de-slotting algorithms for that time. The results were used successfully outside the US. Of course, the 126 software has changed since then.

Incidentally, I keep the Leonard Cohen song you quote on my iPhone.

Interesting. Please keep the results to yourself
Re Leonard Cohen, I'm a huge fan and that line in particular is probably one of the greatest things said about gamblers. Subtle but the most beautiful poetry. His death was a great loss to poetry and music.