Why I doubt about the results of the CSM simulation

[Gronbog]

At a angle of the ratio of 13 ranks of cards dealt out, a CSM game would be quite the same as a shoe of infinity decks of cards. I cannot think of a reason to make the high cards come out more than the low cards.

You're missing the point I made earlier. I am not saying that high cards are dealt more frequently than low cards. They are not. This is what I meant when I said that this is not a bias in the card source.

I'm saying that, at the conclusion of each hand of the shoe/deck, the probability that the last card dealt was a high card is greater than the probability that it was a low card. This is bias is caused mainly by the procedure used by the dealer for drawing cards and is a bias created by that procedure. I have known this for some time now having looked into it for reasons I can no longer remember.

Further discussion on this thread and another current thread proposes that, because of this and because the initial running count is zero, the running count after the first hand dealt from a shoe/deck should tend toward the negative. I initially agreed with this conclusion but am currently running sims which are collecting the data needed to prove or disprove it.

[acw]

CSM output is not random and to simulate one of these machines requires knowledge of the algorithm the machine uses.

I fully agree. Since there are patents on those machines, I even think the algorithm should be public. To assume that those test reports are good enough that there is no bias, I think we may at some stage see some litigation.

[peterlee]

You're missing the point I made earlier. I am not saying that high cards are dealt more frequently than low cards. They are not. This is what I meant when I said that this is not a bias in the card source.

I'm saying that, at the conclusion of each hand of the shoe/deck, the probability that the last card dealt was a high card is greater than the probability that it was a low card. This is bias is caused mainly by the procedure used by the dealer for drawing cards and is a bias created by that procedure. I have known this for some time now having looked into it for reasons I can no longer remember.

Further discussion on this thread and another current thread proposes that, because of this and because the initial running count is zero, the running count after the first hand dealt from a shoe/deck should tend toward the negative. I initially agreed with this conclusion but am currently running sims which are collecting the data needed to prove or disprove it.

I get your point now.
Sorry for misreading your post!

[davethebuilder]

I fully agree. Since there are patents on those machines, I even think the algorithm should be public. To assume that those test reports are good enough that there is no bias, I think we may at some stage see some litigation.

The algorithm would be considered proprietory information and not subject to public scrutiny. I have never seen any evidence of bias in these types of machines otherwise they would be easily exploitable. While the output may be less random that doesn't mean it is predictable.

[acw]

While the output may be less random that doesn't mean it is predictable.

I think I know exactly what you are trying to say, however if that is true, then those machines still need to be classified as illegal or the bias should at least be known towards the public.

Well an old fashioned shoe game has been in business for centuries. These shuffle machines are being upgraded all the time and not just for mechanical reasons! So something must have been wrong with the sequence in which cards were dealt. Predictable or not, there have been biases that SG Gaming is aware of! So is it still an honest game?

[Norm]

I think we are getting off track. The One2Six was beatable with the earlier software releases. This is not in any way to say they were biased, any more than hand shuffled BJ. It's just that you could beat them. There is nothing illegal about them altering the shuffling technique to try to avoid this -- so long as they do not purposely add bias. As much as I dislike these machines, and think casinos are seriously stupid to make the investment, I have yet to see evidence of illegal actions with CSM techniques.

[acw]

biased, any more than hand shuffled BJ.

The point about hand shuffled is that as a patron you can see in plain sight how a shoe is being shuffled. You know no more or less than the house knows. Fair?
With shuffle machines this is clearly not the case. You depend on the validity of test reports.

Can it happen that due to the non-transparency a certain flaw may take a lot longer to be discovered and that some players that (think they) figure out this flaw may take advantage of it?!

[Norm]

Ever see a mechanic. And, the house may not understand hand shuffling flaws well. And, dealers are poorly payed, come and go, new casinos open. Just not that simple. The cat and mouse game continues.

[Gronbog]

Discussion related to running count bias toward the negative in a shoe game during play of the first round of a shoe game continues here:

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...l=1#post307711