Maverick: CSMs - Which one

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

I have no issue with automated shuffling (other than sometimes I enjoy the break and chance to mentally recharge for the next shoe) in that I have not found the automated shuffles to affect my ability to handsomely supplement my income with advantaged play Blackjack (+/- Count Systems).

One the other hand I view the truly continous play machines where the discards are immediately put back into play as an absoulute killer for card counters. I mean all count systems are based on the fact that keeping track of cards removed from play gives you some advantage as the deck/shoe progresses. But if cards are imediately put back into play and in theory could even show up on the next round of hands then it completely destroys the concept of count systems.

I would also assume that even the "Basic Strategy" becomes highly tainted since the computer programs used to simulate the millions of hands that defined the basic strategy all were based on the concept that cards are removed from play after being used.

I refuse to play at a table using the CSM's (not automated deck shuffling but true CSM's) and think Bettie's approach of publicly disapproving of the the evil machines should be applied by every knowledgable player out there.

If I am wrong, please set me straight but it seems to me that the true CSM's would essentially remove all advantaged play and create a truely random game of chance, with the house having the edge since the player has to play first.

[Parker]

Since every round on a CSM table is essentially the same as the first round off the top of a freshly shuffled shoe, basic strategy remains unchanged.

Obviously, CSM's cannot be beaten by card counting, which is not to say that they can never be beaten. All games are exploitable, given a sharp, prepared advantage player and the right set of circumstances. A CSM is a mechanical device, and mechanical devices can malfunction.

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

> Since every round on a CSM table is essentially the
> same as the first round off the top of a freshly
> shuffled shoe, basic strategy remains unchanged.

> Obviously, CSM's cannot be beaten by card counting,
> which is not to say that they can never be beaten. All
> games are exploitable, given a sharp, prepared
> advantage player and the right set of circumstances. A
> CSM is a mechanical device, and mechanical devices can
> malfunction.

So basically you are reduced to playing the basic strategy against a CSM, and as I recall the "Basic Strategy" player is at a slight disadvantage off the top of the deck/shoe, so you are always playing at slight disadvantage with CSM's.

Also, once again, THE "Basic Strategy" was proven out to be the best way to play the various hands based on simulation of tens of millions of hands on the computer...simulations that included working through the deck/shoe.

But remember there are slight variations in THE "Basic Strategy" based on if you are playing a single deck, double deck, multi deck shoe and whether or not you are allowed to double down after a split, so I suspect that there would be SOME variations if the computer simulation was modified to assume a new deck on every hand vs. simulation of working through the deck/shoe.

Maybe there would be changes in the Basic Strategy (probably not drastic but probably there are changes) as to the optimal way to play if the assumption is a new deck/shoe on every hand vs. removal of cards during play.

In any case it still sucks to be reduced to a Basic Strategy player with a slight disadvantage by the CSM's.

I think all intelligent BJ players should take Bettie's approach and publicly shame the machines at every opportunity.

I know I am going to.

[Parker]

A player playing basic strategy against a CSM would normally be playing at a disadvantage, unless the rules were exceptionally good. I have heard of a few games in remote corners of the world where this was the case.

Basic strategy is normally calculated using combinatorial analysis, not via simulation, although sims can certainly be used to verify it.

Basic strategy is simply the play with the highest EV based only on the knowledge of your hand and the dealer's upcard. Other than those cards, it does not consider "removal of cards during play." CSM's are normally loaded with 4, 5, or 6 decks. So, basic strategy for a CSM loaded with 6 decks would be the same as for a 6 deck shoe with the same rules.

I agree that AP's should generally avoid these games unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as a positive off-the-top edge.

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

> A player playing basic strategy against a CSM would
> normally be playing at a disadvantage, unless the
> rules were exceptionally good. I have heard of a few
> games in remote corners of the world where this was
> the case.

> Basic strategy is normally calculated using
> combinatorial analysis, not via simulation, although
> sims can certainly be used to verify it.

> Basic strategy is simply the play with the highest EV
> based only on the knowledge of your hand and the
> dealer's upcard. Other than those cards, it does not
> consider "removal of cards during play."
> CSM's are normally loaded with 4, 5, or 6 decks. So,
> basic strategy for a CSM loaded with 6 decks would be
> the same as for a 6 deck shoe with the same rules.

> I agree that AP's should generally avoid these games
> unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as a
> positive off-the-top edge.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Why havent the casinos switched over to 100% CSM's given their hatred of card counters?

I have been able to work around every other anti-counter measure but if the casino. I noticed one true CSM at my ONLY Casino option within 90 minutes drive to supplement a thier automated shuffle machines. Currently the games are about 50/50 hand shuffled to auto-shuffled with the one CSM I noticed (there may be another one or two I didnt see).

This Casino just spent $MILLIONS on a major renovation so I know it isn't cost that keeps them from going to all CSM's or auto-shuffles. So I don't know why they don't?

[Maverick]

"One the other hand I view the truly continous play
machines where the discards are immediately put back
into play as an absoulute killer for card counters...
...I would also assume that even the "Basic
Strategy" becomes highly tainted ...
...I refuse to play at a table using the CSM's (not
automated deck shuffling but true CSM's) and think
Bettie's approach of publicly disapproving of the the
evil machines should be applied by every knowledgable player out there...

...If I am wrong, please set me straight but it seems to
me that the true CSM's would essentially remove all
advantaged play and create a truely random game of
chance, with the house having the edge since the
player has to play first..."

Basic Stragegy is fine. The problem for the BS player is more hands per hour. There is some speculation around a reverse cut card effect. You might review the article from Dalton's sight for further discussion.

Techniques for playing CSMs don't get aired out alot. They vary depending on the type of machine. I think for most people whatever advantage can be gleamed, it is probably easier to find a better game from a shoe.

Whatever advantage you are trying wrest from a CSM, you really need to know what CSM you are playing against. The mechanics are not always the same.

As you have an interest, I will post links to two articles I have previously posted. One from Michael Dalton's site. The other from Discover Magazine. Enjoy.

http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BJTappendixB.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~plewaj/Randomness.htm

You might want to cut and save the Discover article. Not sure how long it will exist on this site.

Regards,
Maverick

[Maverick]

"I haven't stopped in the CR for months because the
last time I was there all the games were 6:5 (and
tables were packed). At that point who cares what
machine they use?"

They deal BlackJack Switch which has a low house edge of about .2%.

Regards,
Maverick

[Parker]

Actually, the primary reason casinos use CSM's is not to foil counters - that is just a happy (from the casino's viewpoint) side effect. The primary reason is to increase hands/hour by eliminating "downtime" while the cards are being shuffled, or loaded/unloaded from a (non-CSM) automatic shuffler.

Fortunately for us, card counters are not the only players who hate CSM's. Many non-AP players, expecially those who play at higher stakes, also hate them. Even superstitious players distrust them. After all, how can you get a "hot shoe" when the "shoe" never ends?

So, since the casinos want everyone's money, the only casinos to switch entirely to CSM's are those in remote areas, where they have the advantage of being "the only game in town."

In addition, CSM's cost money, both to purchase/lease and to maintain. Many casinos only have all their tables open during peak periods, so the casino could be faced with the prospect of this expensive piece of equipment sitting idle much of the time.

Finally, dealers generally dislike CSM's, as they make a boring repetitive job even more so. Not that the casinos care what their dealers think.

[Parker]

> http://home.earthlink.net/~plewaj/Randomness.htm

> You might want to cut and save the Discover article.
> Not sure how long it will exist on this site.

Why do you say that?

[Maverick]

"Why do you say that?"

Because Discover Magazine is a subscription magazine. I couldn't access the article directly online from them.

How or why it is on the Earthlink site I don't know. But I am not sure it will stay up. So if a player wants to keep it for any reason, might be worth pasting it into a word document.

Regards,
Maverick

[Parker]

> "Why do you say that?"

> Because Discover Magazine is a subscription magazine.
> I couldn't access the article directly online from
> them.

> How or why it is on the Earthlink site I don't know.
> But I am not sure it will stay up. So if a player
> wants to keep it for any reason, might be worth
> pasting it into a word document.

Yes, it is on someone's Earthlink personal home page. Since it is undoubtedly copyrighted material, it is probably posted illegally.

Actually, I misunderstood your comment. When you said, "Not sure how long it will exist on this site," I thought you were referring to AdvantagePlayer.com.

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

> Actually, the primary reason casinos use CSM's is not
> to foil counters - that is just a happy (from the
> casino's viewpoint) side effect. The primary reason is
> to increase hands/hour by eliminating
> "downtime" while the cards are being
> shuffled, or loaded/unloaded from a (non-CSM)
> automatic shuffler.

> Fortunately for us, card counters are not the only
> players who hate CSM's. Many non-AP players,
> expecially thosee who play at higher stakes, also hate
> them. Even superstitious players distrust them. After
> all, how can you get a "hot shoe" when the
> "shoe" never ends?

> So, since the casinos want everyone's money, the
> only casinos to switch entirely to CSM's are those in
> remote areas, where they have the advantage of being
> "the only game in town."

> In addition, CSM's cost money, both to purchase/lease
> and to maintain. Many casinos only have all their
> tables open during peak periods, so the casino could
> be faced with the prospect of this expensive piece of
> equipment sitting idle much of the time.

> Finally, dealers generally dislike CSM's, as they make
> a boring repetitive job even more so. Not that the
> casinos care what their dealers think.

Very good perspective. Thank you.

[BlackJack For Extra $$$]

> "One the other hand I view the truly continous
> play
> machines where the discards are immediately put back
> into play as an absoulute killer for card counters...
> ...I would also assume that even the "Basic
> Strategy" becomes highly tainted ...
> ...I refuse to play at a table using the CSM's (not
> automated deck shuffling but true CSM's) and think
> Bettie's approach of publicly disapproving of the the
> evil machines should be applied by every knowledgable
> player out there...

> ...If I am wrong, please set me straight but it seems
> to
> me that the true CSM's would essentially remove all
> advantaged play and create a truely random game of
> chance, with the house having the edge since the
> player has to play first..."

> Basic Stragegy is fine. The problem for the BS player
> is more hands per hour. There is some speculation
> around a reverse cut card effect. You might review the
> article from Dalton's sight for further discussion.

> Techniques for playing CSMs don't get aired out alot.
> They vary depending on the type of machine. I think
> for most people whatever advantage can be gleamed, it
> is probably easier to find a better game from a shoe.

> Whatever advantage you are trying wrest from a CSM,
> you really need to know what CSM you are playing
> against. The mechanics are not always the same.

> As you have an interest, I will post links to two
> articles I have previously posted. One from Michael
> Dalton's site. The other from Discover Magazine.
> Enjoy.

> http://www.bjrnet.com/archive/BJTappendixB.htm

> http://home.earthlink.net/~plewaj/Randomness.htm

> You might want to cut and save the Discover article.
> Not sure how long it will exist on this site.

> Regards,
> Maverick

I have no desire to play against the wretched CSM's...but I will read the articles anyway just to stay informed!

Thanks