Mark: Tell me all about CSMs

[Mark]

Hi,

Whats the deal with continuous shuffeling machines.
I have seen plenty of them around and always just avoided them.

A typical set up might be a four deck game where about 1 deck is played and then the discards are plugged back into the machine. They are quite slow to disolve back inside. When the cards for the next round hit the table 90% of the old ones are still stitting on top of the machine. However if you are in the last position by the time you have to make a playing decision most of the discards have disolved back in.

I'm guessing that the machine must hold about half a deck worth of cards at the very front of itself which can't be contaminated by the incomming discards.

These factors all probably amount to about two decks penitration.

Anyway this is all just specualtion.
Does anybody know any angles you can use to beat a CSM. ?

Also,

If CSMs are fast (no lost shuffling time) and not worth a card counters effort why haven't they been adopted everywhere ?

[Parker]

> Hi,

> Whats the deal with continuous shuffeling
> machines.
> I have seen plenty of them around and always
> just avoided them.

A wise decision

> A typical set up might be a four deck game
> where about 1 deck is played and then the
> discards are plugged back into the machine.
> They are quite slow to disolve back inside.
> When the cards for the next round hit the
> table 90% of the old ones are still stitting
> on top of the machine. However if you are in
> the last position by the time you have to
> make a playing decision most of the discards
> have disolved back in.

> I'm guessing that the machine must hold
> about half a deck worth of cards at the very
> front of itself which can't be contaminated
> by the incomming discards.

> These factors all probably amount to about
> two decks penitration.

There are different types of CSM's and they work in different ways. The one most commonly seen, at least in the USA, is the King, by Shuffle Master. It can be loaded with 4 or 5 decks, and it beeps if the dealer does not return the dealt cards after every round. Effective penetration is probably more like one deck.

If you're mechnically inclined, you can learn more about the workings of these by looking at the patents on them at the government patent website.

> Anyway this is all just specualtion.
> Does anybody know any angles you can use to
> beat a CSM. ?

Essentially, once you figure out the amount of latency (how long it takes the discards to be mixed back into the pack), you could approach it like a shoe with poor penetration. Watch for a slew of little cards to come out and then wong in for a round, maybe two.

A better idea is to not play and let them die a natural death.

> Also,

> If CSMs are fast (no lost shuffling time)
> and not worth a card counters effort why
> haven't they been adopted everywhere ?

Because players, especially those betting big money (besides counters), do not like them. Walk into many casinos and you will see the CSM's on the low minimum tables and non-continuous shufflers or hand shuffling on the higher minimum games.

People like to be able to see all the cards, and they like the ritual of cutting the cards. Even clueless ploppies may figure out that they lose more rapidly at a CSM table. Also, they will never get the "hot shoe" that they think they can exploit. Many players enjoy the natural break in the action that the shuffle provides.

The speed gain is not as much as one might think. What really slows down a game is players who do not get their bets out quickly and/or must agonize over every stiff hand before hitting or standing.

The casinos lease the machines, so the gain from increased hands/hour is offset to some degree by the lease payment due every month. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to put these on tables that are only open during peak periods.

[Mark]

The ones that I know of are outside the USA although they are also made by Shuffle Master. The amount of cards played depened on the dealer so a lazy dealer can some times wait for two decks before pluging the discards back in while a paranoid one will do it after every round.

Do you know the address of the government patent website. ? It might be interesting

> A wise decision

> There are different types of CSM's and they
> work in different ways. The one most
> commonly seen, at least in the USA, is the
> King, by Shuffle Master. It can be loaded
> with 4 or 5 decks, and it beeps if the
> dealer does not return the dealt cards after
> every round. Effective penetration is
> probably more like one deck.

> If you're mechnically inclined, you can
> learn more about the workings of these by
> looking at the patents on them at the
> government patent website.

> Essentially, once you figure out the amount
> of latency (how long it takes the discards
> to be mixed back into the pack), you could
> approach it like a shoe with poor
> penetration. Watch for a slew of little
> cards to come out and then wong in for a
> round, maybe two.

> A better idea is to not play and let them
> die a natural death.

> Because players, especially those betting
> big money (besides counters), do not like
> them. Walk into many casinos and you will
> see the CSM's on the low minimum tables and
> non-continuous shufflers or hand shuffling
> on the higher minimum games.

> People like to be able to see all the cards,
> and they like the ritual of cutting the
> cards. Even clueless ploppies may figure out
> that they lose more rapidly at a CSM table.
> Also, they will never get the "hot
> shoe" that they think they can exploit.
> Many players enjoy the natural break in the
> action that the shuffle provides.

> The speed gain is not as much as one might
> think. What really slows down a game is
> players who do not get their bets out
> quickly and/or must agonize over every stiff
> hand before hitting or standing.

> The casinos lease the machines, so the gain
> from increased hands/hour is offset to some
> degree by the lease payment due every month.
> It wouldn't make a lot of sense to put these
> on tables that are only open during peak
> periods.