Mark: Has anybody else lost in the Czec Republic.

[Mark]

Hi,

I believe I have been cheated in Prauge.
After a couple of days play I have run up significant loses in a very suspisious manner.
I have lots of hours up as a counter and my results arn't out of line with expectaion, so its possible I'm just imagining it because I lost.

Has anybody else who counts lost here ?

I have no hard evidence.

Here is what makes me suspisious ...

At Casino Henry I played a couple of shoes and they were cuting off a little over 2 decks. I saw all the cards and they were shuffled, nothing much happened.
There was some talking in Czec the dealer was changed from a clueless girl to a young streetwise looking Czec guy. He seemed to shuffle normally then cut about 1.25 out of six. Great ! I thought. The count went positive and I just kept losing. It finished highly positive and I had lost all the money in front of me. I stopped.

I think he somehow shuffled the 10s behind the cut card and then gave deep pen to intice me to bet.

A similar thing happened to me at the Savrin which is part of a large reputable corporate chain.
I had usd table to myself. I was getting about 2 decks cut from 6 by the lady dealers and things were rolling along ok. I lost a bit, the count went postive I raised my bet and won a few hundred USD. Suddenly the dealer was changed to a young man. Anyway it was getting late so I decided to quit for the night. I turned to him and said "Well I'm winning so I think I'll quit." He flinched with annoyance and stared to tremble a bit, then composed him self and said good night.

When I returned the next day he was rosted on after a couple of shoes, gave me great penitration and then proceded to take all my money. Again the count went positive and finished positive.

I also lost at the Royal. I don't know if they are doing this on purpose, but its very effective.
I went there on the defensive and got them to give me fresh decks, which they layed out and shuffled. Instead of being spread out like normal they were arranged in small fans. They were then turned over, mixed very lightly and shuffled in a poor way.
When a fresh deck is layed out it runs A23...QK so the cards arrange them selves in clumps.

I lost about 800 usd in the first shoe and then realised what was going on. You can see the cards clumped in their suited groups. Mabey it goes
Ac 3h 2c 4h 3c . Sometimes the groups are corrupted with a couple of high cards but the effect is that you lose fast and lots.
You are always being set up on double downs.
I made a scene and called over the floor manager. He spead out the unplayed cards and sure enough they were clumped.
He offered to prove all the cards were in the deck. I offered the cards as evidence of clumping. The dealers all started laughing and I was told that was just how the blackjack goes. He then told me that I should play somewhere else if I didn't trust the house.

I also lost at the VIP. I was counting for over/under but it never ever became good enough to bet it. Instead I lost about 200 small bet units in the space of 2.5 hours. Everything seemed in order but the game just didn't seem to run right.

There was one casino under a big hotel which I believe is actually a fair game. I lost a little there. Once I started varying my bets they changed the cut from 2 to 3. Which is consistant with normal casino behaviour.

[Geoff Hall]

> I think he somehow shuffled the 10s behind
> the cut card and then gave deep pen to
> intice me to bet.
... ... ...

> I went there on the defensive and got them
> to give me fresh decks, which they layed out
> and shuffled. Instead of being spread out
> like normal they were arranged in small
> fans. They were then turned over, mixed very
> lightly and shuffled in a poor way.

You are right with your second point as fresh cards, that are shuffled poorly, will lead to clumps of cards and a subsequent disadvantage to the player, regardless of whether that player is counting or not.

Your first point, indicating that the dealer locates the high cards and inserts them in the back, could be turned to your advantage as follows :-

If the shuffle is such that portions of the decks can be located then you should study the technique of 'shuffle tracking'. This is even more beneficial if 'O/U 13' is also available.

I'm not sure of the best books available on this topic (I'm sure that some members can advise you here) but it seems to cry out for this technique, if your account of what happened to you is because of high-count location.

Can you be more specific about the shuffle that they used at each casino ?

The more 'weapons' that you carry in your portfolio will allow you to benefit from certain casino conditions that other AP players may not be able to benefit from.

Best regards

Geoff

[Parker]

> ... ... ...

> You are right with your second point as
> fresh cards, that are shuffled poorly, will
> lead to clumps of cards and a subsequent
> disadvantage to the player, regardless of
> whether that player is counting or not.

I'm surprised that someone as knowledgeable as yourself would subscribe to this mythology.

This was one of the principles of Jerry Patterson's TARGET system, and it is been thoroughly discredited. Stanford Wong did extensive research on this subject.

Sure, a less-than-thorough shuffle may produce clumps of cards, but this is just as likely to favor the player as the house, assuming that this is merely the result of a poor shuffle, and not a deliberate attempt by the dealer to move high cards out of play.

If a player is knowledgeable in shuffle tracking he may be able to exploit this as you say, but absent such knowledge, and assuming that the dealer is not cheating, then a poorly shuffled deck is just more randomness.

[Geoff Hall]

> I'm surprised that someone as knowledgeable
> as yourself would subscribe to this
> mythology.

> This was one of the principles of Jerry
> Patterson's TARGET system, and it is been
> thoroughly discredited. Stanford Wong did
> extensive research on this subject.

> Sure, a less-than-thorough shuffle may
> produce clumps of cards, but this is just as
> likely to favor the player as the house,
> assuming that this is merely the result of a
> poor shuffle, and not a deliberate attempt
> by the dealer to move high cards out of
> play.

> If a player is knowledgeable in shuffle
> tracking he may be able to exploit this as
> you say, but absent such knowledge, and
> assuming that the dealer is not cheating,
> then a poorly shuffled deck is just more
> randomness.

I have assumed that the fresh decks were poorly shuffled and, by the comments made by the original author about the order of the cards coming out, that they were not given a 'wash'.

I think that the late Ken Uston first noticed this and actually tried to get New Jersey to perform a fair shuffle in their casinos as a result.

Even though the scenario is rare I was reponding according to what the writer had written. If you are saying that fresh decks, unwashed and poorly shuffled do not make a difference, particularly to a counter (especially playing heads-up), then I disagree. Simulations have shown a non-randomness associated with extreme shuffling procedures (or should I say 'lack of shuffling' procedures).

Best regards

Geoff

[Mark]

As I said in my original post its possible that I'm just being really paranoid because I lost.
By making this post I might be able to set things clear in my mind one way or the other.
The whole place just seems suspisous. I have seen very few local people in the casinos. They are usually empty and then one forign tourist walks in loses all his money quickly and then leaves. I have never seen anybody winning at the blackjack for more than a very short time out of a few days hanging around these places. Ploppies usually lose fast anyway but you expect at least a couple to win for a while.

You said that clumping can not help the house.
Can you explain this more.
As I see it if you play into a slug of A-6 its almost imposible for you to win.
You will always get set up on double downs against the dealers low card. You will double down and get a small card and then it becomes almost impossible for the dealer to break because he can not draw a card larger than 6

At the place with the clumping, they wash the cards but only very poorly. They then rifle them twice. Many of cards remain rougly in suited order
so you will see something like Ac 5h 6h 2c 7h 3c 4c
Of couse as subsequent shoes are played the cards mix and after about the third shuffle things are fairly random again. That why I'm not sure if they do it on purpose.

Do you know of any common methods of cheating on a blackjack game ?

What I do know is that all the cards are in the shoe. And from what I can see the shoe looks like a fairly standard black plastic one.
All of the suspect places use cards which have no white border on the back. The pattern comes right up to the edge.
The cards all seem to square up against the discard tray.

They all seem to use a similar shuffle where the shoe is broken in six piles, the piles are rifiled together and then striped a few times. They are then stacked up broken into two piles of three and then riffled back to gether fairly roughly.

[Mister M]

> They all seem to use a similar shuffle where
> the shoe is broken in six piles, the piles
> are rifiled together and then striped a few
> times. They are then stacked up broken into
> two piles of three and then riffled back to
> gether fairly roughly.

Can you be more specific with the shuffle map?
What are the grab sizes, and do thay use a criss cross pattern or a side by side? Give as much info as you can.

Am I correct in assuming that you are offered the plastic cut card and if so then how would the dealer know in advance where you are going to cut?

He would need this knowledege in order to position the high cards behind the cut.No?

[Mark]

They did allow me to cut the cards.
I have gone back and watched these crooked places for a few hours and not played.

My first theory about the 10s being tricked shuffled out of play I think was incorrect.

But I'm almost positive these places are cheating and I'd love to know how.

They all use a similar shuffle.
The six deck shoe is broken down into six individual packs. The dealer then picks up a pack in each hand and rifles them together. Picks up clumps of cards from the new two deck pile and stips it several times. This procedure is repeated two more times for the remaining packs. He then has a pile of six decks which he breaks into two piles of three and rifles together to make the final six deck pile.

My new theory is that they are using trick cards that clump together during the striping part of the shuffle.

I noticed that cards of the same rank all hand around in clumps with a regularity to frequent to be random.

For example ...
A three will often (not always) be followed by at least 2 more 3s with in the next 6 cards. When you look at a full table of cards. It is often full of pairs, triples and quads.

Any ideas ?

Am I just crazy ?

[Mister M]

> They did allow me to cut the cards.
Always a good sign!

> My first theory about the 10s being tricked
> shuffled out of play I think was incorrect.

Absolutely correct!
> But I'm almost positive these places are
> cheating and I'd love to know how.

"Something is rotten in the state Etc."

> They all use a similar shuffle.
> The six deck shoe is broken down into six
> individual packs.
How exactly do they break into 6 piles?

> The dealer then picks up a pack in each hand and riffles them together.
This sounds like too large a grab size to me. Are you positive tht it is 52 cards EACH grab or 26(more probable)

> Picks up clumps of cards from the new two deck pile and strips it several times.
This has no bearing on the segment dilution just the sequencing( another subject!)

>This procedure is repeated two more times for the remaining packs. He then has a pile of six
> decks which he breaks into two piles of
> three and rifles together to make the final
> six deck pile. Nothing unusual here.

> My new theory is that they are using trick
> cards that clump together during the
> stripping part of the shuffle.
> I noticed that cards of the same rank all
> hand around in clumps with a regularity to
> frequent to be random.

> For example ...
> A three will often (not always) be followed
> by at least 2 more 3s with in the next 6
> cards. When you look at a full table of
> cards. It is often full of pairs, triples
> and quads.

Does this "clumping" (sorry D.S)also occur once the decks have been in play for some time?

I need to know more about what the dealer actions are when the cut card is dealt at the end of the shoe and also what he does with the cutoffs.

Please try to name each segment a,b,c etc with "a" being the one deck seg. at the bottom of the discard tray before the dealer breaks in any way.

[Mark]

I went back and looked again.
I was not concentrating on grab sizes too much the first time.

The grab sizes are closer to half a deck at the casinos I was talking about before.
The unplayed cards are taken from the shoe and placed on top of the discards. They arn't split up.
They all use slightly different shuffles but with one common theme. Lots of striping.

I'll descibe the one at the Airport Royal which has really good rules and penitration.
Its pretty simple ...
It starts off (F and a tiny bit of E are the dicards)
F
E
D
C
B
A

It is split into

C F
B E
A D

About half a deck is grabed from each pile and rifled together, pulled apart again and then stipped a few times.
So you end up with

A+D
B+E
C+F

The ones in town are a little more complex as I descibed before.

But common theme is lots of stripping.

At first I thought the clumping was only because of a poor shuffle on fresh decks but after watching more, It seems to remain even after many shuffles. It is just a little less noticable because the cards are not in any kind of suited sequences any more.

As I was saying before cards of the same rank seem to stick close together. Kings follow kings fours follow fours..
I'm not sure if this is above normal frequencey though. It could just be my imagination.

If you have any theorys I'll like to hear them.

Thanks ...

> Always a good sign!

> Absolutely correct!

> "Something is rotten in the state
> Etc."
> How exactly do they break into 6 piles?
> This sounds like too large a grab size to
> me. Are you positive tht it is 52 cards EACH
> grab or 26(more probable)
> This has no bearing on the segment dilution
> just the sequencing( another subject!)

> Does this "clumping" (sorry
> D.S)also occur once the decks have been in
> play for some time?

> I need to know more about what the dealer
> actions are when the cut card is dealt at
> the end of the shoe and also what he does
> with the cutoffs.

> Please try to name each segment a,b,c etc
> with "a" being the one deck seg.
> at the bottom of the discard tray before the
> dealer breaks in any way.

[Mister M]

> F
> E
> D
> C
> B
> A

> It is split into

> C F
> B E
> A D

> About half a deck is grabed from each pile
> and rifled together, pulled apart again and
> then stipped a few times.
> So you end up with

> A+D
> B+E
> C+F

> The ones in town are a little more complex
> as I descibed before.

> But common theme is lots of stripping.

The stripping has NO effect on the dilution!

I thought that you said this was a two pass?

There are many ways to verify this shuffle without losing.The following is a simple method:

Count the first and fourth decks dealt. After the shuffle you describe these will marry to form the TOP two decks offered before the cut.

Let's say that a=-5 and d=-3. The top two will become -8 and assuming a balanced count the bottom 4 MUST be +8.

Cut a half deck from the bottom or the minimum that thay will tolerate. When this seg.has been played start counting and only flat bet. After your two decks have been played the count should be -8 but with errors -5/6 will do nicely.

If the count is any positive,please LEAVE.

It would be prudent to verify further and maybe track 2 or 3 shoes in this manner.

A dishonest casino deserves to be out of bussiness so shout it out loud once you are sure.

I will state however that I always track a new game before playing to "verify" and that I have never to my knowledge played against a dishonest game anywhere in the world.
IMHO the reputable chains and even the smaller hotel casinos that I often frequent do not need to cheat.The rules and pen.are as bad as the ploppies.

BTW, If this casino is playing straight you should be able to absolutely murder this shuffle!

[Geoff]

> There are many ways to verify this shuffle
> without losing.The following is a simple
> method:

> Count the first and fourth decks dealt.
> After the shuffle you describe these will
> marry to form the TOP two decks offered
> before the cut.

> Let's say that a=-5 and d=-3. The top two
> will become -8 and assuming a balanced count
> the bottom 4 MUST be +8.

> Cut a half deck from the bottom or the
> minimum that thay will tolerate. When this
> seg.has been played start counting and only
> flat bet. After your two decks have been
> played the count should be -8 but with
> errors -5/6 will do nicely.

> If the count is any positive,please LEAVE.

> It would be prudent to verify further and
> maybe track 2 or 3 shoes in this manner.

Good point Mister M, a competent shuffle tracker should soon be able to gauge whether the game is being shuffled fairly assuming the following as well :-

In your example, whereby you should finish with a -8 count, I would also be suspicious if the count continually went up and down in extremes. For example, 1st deck +20 then second deck -28, which would still give you your expected total. This may add weight to the tapered cards theory.

Best regards

Geoff

[Orson]

> As I was saying before cards of the same
> rank seem to stick close together. Kings
> follow kings fours follow fours..
> I'm not sure if this is above normal
> frequencey though. It could just be my
> imagination.

> If you have any theorys I'll like to hear
> them.

Again, this resembles me a theory about different card dimensions. And that is what always happened to me at Royal airport: tens follow tens and low cards follow low cards. It should be pretty easy to shuffle tens and non-tens separately for the cheating dealer.

Regards,
Orson

[Orson]

Apart from the mirror in the shoe, I also heard the following theory about Prague - the cards have different dimensions. Usually, tens are slightly narrower than non-tens. You should be able to notice some unhomogenity, when offered the cut (personally I didn't see anything special). So, the cheating dealers therefore are able to shuffle separately tens and non-tens. When playing in a ten-rich segment, you push most hands. When playing in non-ten rich segment, you got numerous oportunities for doubling, always got low cards and dealer almost never busts.

Regards,
Orson