SCAMMING SHUFFLEMASTERS
July 15th, 2011 at 2:03:21 AM
permalink
Wiz,
We have communicated several times through the years. I am an "advantage player" who had great success from 2002-2010, playing double deck mainly in the Kansas City area. I basically can't win any longer through the standard counting methodology. I have long mistrusted the flush mount Shufflemasters (Deck-Mate). The very week in 2006 the Ameristar switched to them from the old hi-rise 3 chamber shufflemasters, 4 of us counters noticed the cards were clumping completely differently. Basically, if lows come out, you get a good count, expect the highs are overdue, raise your bet, but all that happens is lows come out again. Anyhow, they have very deep pen around town, and I could always beat them.
The rumors are that since May 2010, the shufflemasters have settings for when there are counters at the table. Virtually every great count, high bet, you lose. The reason I truly BELIEVE the rumors are true is that the casinos are taking virtually no action or counter-measures against the counters, with the exception of one fellow who spreads from $25 to $2500, and they short-shoe him. Do you have an opinion on this subject? And don't just say the only reason the shuffle machines are there is to get more hands per hour.
Two long time counters I know are employing multiple other strategies, and relegating the standard hi-lo count to a lesser importance.
On a related subject, how does the Missouri (or other) Gaming Commision approve a product like shufflemaster? Does Shufflemaster just provide a report to MGC stating that their machine gives a "true random shuffle"? Does MGC do testing? Or do they just accept what Nevada accepts and leave it at that? I have wondered this for years.
We have communicated several times through the years. I am an "advantage player" who had great success from 2002-2010, playing double deck mainly in the Kansas City area. I basically can't win any longer through the standard counting methodology. I have long mistrusted the flush mount Shufflemasters (Deck-Mate). The very week in 2006 the Ameristar switched to them from the old hi-rise 3 chamber shufflemasters, 4 of us counters noticed the cards were clumping completely differently. Basically, if lows come out, you get a good count, expect the highs are overdue, raise your bet, but all that happens is lows come out again. Anyhow, they have very deep pen around town, and I could always beat them.
The rumors are that since May 2010, the shufflemasters have settings for when there are counters at the table. Virtually every great count, high bet, you lose. The reason I truly BELIEVE the rumors are true is that the casinos are taking virtually no action or counter-measures against the counters, with the exception of one fellow who spreads from $25 to $2500, and they short-shoe him. Do you have an opinion on this subject? And don't just say the only reason the shuffle machines are there is to get more hands per hour.
Two long time counters I know are employing multiple other strategies, and relegating the standard hi-lo count to a lesser importance.
On a related subject, how does the Missouri (or other) Gaming Commision approve a product like shufflemaster? Does Shufflemaster just provide a report to MGC stating that their machine gives a "true random shuffle"? Does MGC do testing? Or do they just accept what Nevada accepts and leave it at that? I have wondered this for years.
July 15th, 2011 at 2:36:05 AM
permalink
So what you're saying is the shuffle machine reads the cards and arranges them to screw you. That they aren't producing a random shuffle. That would be majorly illegal, don't you think? Why would a casino put its license in jeopardy to neutralize a few card counters. They wouldn't.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2011 at 2:49:45 AM
permalink
And how is it that a secret button on the shuffle device works without knowing how many players are at the table so as to know which cards go to the dealer and which cards go to the players?
July 15th, 2011 at 5:21:40 AM
permalink
If shufflemaster's shuffling machine offers these feature.
How long do you think they can keep his secret from the public?
How long do you think they can keep his secret from the public?
Stephen Au-Yeung (Legend of New Table Games®) NewTableGames.com
July 15th, 2011 at 6:31:57 AM
permalink
.....
July 15th, 2011 at 6:52:46 AM
permalink
I have never seen anything other than anecdotal evidence like this that the machines are not fair.
The same for the single-deck shufflers in Three Card Poker. Debates have raged for years among hole carders about those being fair. I've heard lots of APs singing the blues about their results against those, but nobody has proven anything non-random as far as I know.
In neither case I'm saying the machines are fair, but in America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The same for the single-deck shufflers in Three Card Poker. Debates have raged for years among hole carders about those being fair. I've heard lots of APs singing the blues about their results against those, but nobody has proven anything non-random as far as I know.
In neither case I'm saying the machines are fair, but in America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
July 15th, 2011 at 7:25:49 AM
permalink
Neutralizing a few card counters with "heat" and "shoulder taps" won't make major headlines and won't jeopardize their licenses. Using a crook shuffler would. Worse: how would Shuffle Master salesmen be received if they went around hawking such a product? What casino would buy any product from that company ever again? What casino would risk being tainted over an issue with a few card counters who could be so easily dealt with much more discreetly? So I would second the motion. Although its not proof that the devices are fair it sure presents a hurdle of common sense. If it would be "curtains" for the General Manager and might even be "curtains" for the casino's license, its not likely to be happening if the problem is over a few low-time card counters whose "advantage" is at best marginal.Quote: EvenBobWhy would a casino put its license in jeopardy to neutralize a few card counters. They wouldn't.
July 15th, 2011 at 8:14:29 AM
permalink
" If shufflemaster's shuffling machine offers these feature.
How long do you think they can keep his secret from the public? "
A very valid point, but try this also. I have done it many many time to prove third base has no effect. Take a six deck shoe and deal until you have third base have a hand that a mistake is usually made, say hitting 12 against a 6, or similar, Have him take the dealers break card. Then deal another 10 rounds, play BS all the way. Being careful to only pick up all cards afterwards in the same manner
they came out of the shoe. Log the results for each player. Whether or not third base taking the dealers break card, has a great effect. But not just on that hand, but the ten rounds that follow. Losers become winner, winners become losers, dealer may make 20 or 21 8 times or break 7 times. So not only does the shuffler have to know you are counting, but how every player is going to act on their hand.
Stephen is so right about keeping a secret. I am sure the following statement is as true in his culture as in mine. " The only way that
3 people can keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead" !
How long do you think they can keep his secret from the public? "
A very valid point, but try this also. I have done it many many time to prove third base has no effect. Take a six deck shoe and deal until you have third base have a hand that a mistake is usually made, say hitting 12 against a 6, or similar, Have him take the dealers break card. Then deal another 10 rounds, play BS all the way. Being careful to only pick up all cards afterwards in the same manner
they came out of the shoe. Log the results for each player. Whether or not third base taking the dealers break card, has a great effect. But not just on that hand, but the ten rounds that follow. Losers become winner, winners become losers, dealer may make 20 or 21 8 times or break 7 times. So not only does the shuffler have to know you are counting, but how every player is going to act on their hand.
Stephen is so right about keeping a secret. I am sure the following statement is as true in his culture as in mine. " The only way that
3 people can keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead" !
July 15th, 2011 at 8:29:22 AM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizThe rumors are that since May 2010, the shufflemasters have settings for when there are counters at the table. Virtually every great count, high bet, you lose.
That's easy enough to test. Play for a few days at a flat bet and track the wins/losses by count (written down on paper). Then play for another few days and spread your normal spread and track the wins/losses by count. They should be the same, of course. If they're not, you may have a case. But the problem with not tracking things with paper is the mind is very easy to trick when it comes to correlations and random outcomes. Confirmation bias is really hard to overcome without objective data.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
July 15th, 2011 at 8:38:39 AM
permalink
Reply to all the replies: I have heard rumors for years and dismissed them myself. The only reason I am starting to buy them is the casinos are taking virtually no measures against the counters. If there was a button for when there are counters at the table, it wouldn't necessarily be illegal. It could just be considered a secondary type of "random" shuffle. Or maybe all the machines have simply been converted to the new type of shuffle. It wouldn't have to know how many players were at the table if it excessively clumped the high cards together and the low cards together.
July 15th, 2011 at 8:41:17 AM
permalink
I doubt if any pit in the country would let you write stuff down at the table. The wiz himself was once not allowed to write down data at a machine, no less.
July 15th, 2011 at 8:55:53 AM
permalink
I never figured out why any casino takes any action against a few low-time card counters whose "advantage" is at best marginal.
July 15th, 2011 at 9:19:08 AM
permalink
I mistrust conspiracy theories for various reasons. one is they are too complicated. In this case, why go to the trouble of making, testing and installing a new type of machine to defeat card coutners, when a simple, off the shelf continous shuffler serves the same purpose?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 15th, 2011 at 10:00:26 AM
permalink
Well, among other things, dealers don't like continuous shufflers bc they get no breaks whatever. I think play would also drop dramatically. I have seen several casinos put many in, and only end up keeping 2 or 3.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:19:08 AM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizWell, among other things, dealers don't like continuous shufflers bc they get no breaks whatever. I think play would also drop dramatically. I have seen several casinos put many in, and only end up keeping 2 or 3.
Ok. that sounds plausible.
I apologize for bringing up the "c" word. It's just that cranks wo't listen to reason.
anyway, it would be best to ahve real, hard, objective data. if you have it already, please tell us about it. Otherwise I ahve to agree you may be experiencing confiramtion bias, or maybe you hit a rough patch.
I hesitate to say this, but, what the hell :) A shuffler that arranges cards would be different, and likely bigger, than one which merely shuffles. It would need room to hold cards while arranging patterns, after all. It might be just as fast (machines can be incredibly fast), but if arranging cards it would be a tad slower, at least, thana regular one, or the same model on regular mode.
However, I do wonder whether shufflers may be biased. Say you put in a new deck with the cards in order and have the machine shuffle them, then you record in which order the cards come out. next repeat the procedure with a new deck, and so on with, oh, fifty decks or so. if you see repeating "random" patterns in the various shuffles, then there may be a bias in the way that machine shuffles the cards. Of course the test would need to be done on multiple machines of the same model to see whether the bias, if any, varies from machine to machine...
So, given a possible bias, could a shuffler be screwing up card coutners from an initial ordered deck, either by design or by (un)happy accident?
Geez, the things I can imagine at work....
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 15th, 2011 at 10:27:39 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI have never seen anything other than anecdotal evidence like this that the machines are not fair.
The same for the single-deck shufflers in Three Card Poker. Debates have raged for years among hole carders about those being fair. I've heard lots of APs singing the blues about their results against those, but nobody has proven anything non-random as far as I know.
LOL, you mean they think Three Card Poker doesn't have a high enough house advantage? I think it's right on the edge now; if the house advantage were any higher the game would die.
As far as the blackjack shoe, I don't see it. For every card counter there are two dozen players who hit or stand seemingly at random. Shufflemaster would have a far, far harder time accounting for those players; why ignore the huge sample to screw with the tiny sample?
A falling knife has no handle.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:04:21 AM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizReply to all the replies: I have heard rumors for years and dismissed them myself. The only reason I am starting to buy them is the casinos are taking virtually no measures against the counters. If there was a button for when there are counters at the table, it wouldn't necessarily be illegal. It could just be considered a secondary type of "random" shuffle. Or maybe all the machines have simply been converted to the new type of shuffle. It wouldn't have to know how many players were at the table if it excessively clumped the high cards together and the low cards together.
Isn't the clumping of the high cards the whole reason for counting? Extended runs of low cards upon low cards only means you should bet more spots and increase your base bets in anticipation of the high card clump breaking open. Are you saying the deal never gets to the high card clump due to the placement of the cut card? If this were so, wouldn't basic strategy still get you into a position of pushing more often since the dealer must face the same low cards as you?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
July 15th, 2011 at 11:43:52 AM
permalink
To the best of my knowledge, shufflemasters do not shuffle, but plug units of perhaps 7 and 11 cards.
July 15th, 2011 at 12:08:33 PM
permalink
By "shuffle" if you mean to push two stacks of cards together so they merege into one, then, no, they don't do that. But they don't plug clumps either.Quote: JuniorWizTo the best of my knowledge, shufflemasters do not shuffle, but plug units of perhaps 7 and 11 cards.
For the record, about 10 or 15 years ago, I DID see a shuffler in a casino that did "shuffle". And it did it openly, so you could watch. It took the deck, cut them into two stubs, jogged them, pushed them together at a slight angle, had a 'finger' over each stub, and, while pushing them together at the corner, a 'thumb' came up where they met, to riffle them. Then the fingers and walls pushed the deck together to jog them. Then it did it again a couple times. VERY cool to watch.
ShuffleMaster machines do it differently. The machine that does a single deck, such as the DeckMate that are found on poker tables, does it kinda like a novelty store shuffler, but in reverse. It takes the deck and pushes the top card to one of two piles. Then it stacks the stubs, and does it again.
The BJ version that randomizes 6 or 8 decks at a time, does the same thing, but on a larger scale.
Shufflers that have a rounded body, for a single deck used on games like Pai Gow where each player gets all his cards at once, takes the discards and randomly places them into compartments. The body of the shuffler is rounded because the compartments rotate around, kinda like the 45 on an old style juke box. I don't know if any additional randomization is performed.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 15th, 2011 at 12:09:01 PM
permalink
If it brings you comfort to believe in the existence of such a button, fine. Just sit there, breathe in the extra oxygen the casino is pumping into the casino's air supply and enjoy it.Quote: JuniorWizIf there was a button for when there are counters at the table, it wouldn't necessarily be illegal.
July 15th, 2011 at 1:15:41 PM
permalink
Quote: gofaster87That would be easy. The machine would know how many players at the table by the bets placed on the table. Its very easy to put a sensor under the felt. Look at the tables that have a sensor for bonus bets. I'm not saying this is going on but its not too hard to employ.
Not too hard to employ? You don't think ONE person involved in setting this theft up would decide to rat out the casino? I'm not saying the technology doesn't exist, but this would be a major covert undertaking with too many aware to keep it secret!!
July 15th, 2011 at 2:13:27 PM
permalink
Gee I was winning at the horse races until the jockeys started fixing the races. Then I was winning at slots until they started using
my players card to turn my machine cold. I was up 14 million before Full Tilt went under. Should have followed my gut and withdrew
10 million last year, Now I have a blackjack already to go to Vegas and you tell me the Shufflenaster machines are rigged,
I can't win for losing.
P.S. if all the advantage players I met in casinos, or bj forums, or on-line chat and blogs, if 10% of them actually won 10% of what they brag about, 100% of the BJ tables would no longer be in any casino.
my players card to turn my machine cold. I was up 14 million before Full Tilt went under. Should have followed my gut and withdrew
10 million last year, Now I have a blackjack already to go to Vegas and you tell me the Shufflenaster machines are rigged,
I can't win for losing.
P.S. if all the advantage players I met in casinos, or bj forums, or on-line chat and blogs, if 10% of them actually won 10% of what they brag about, 100% of the BJ tables would no longer be in any casino.
July 15th, 2011 at 2:15:05 PM
permalink
Quote: MoscaLOL, you mean they think Three Card Poker doesn't have a high enough house advantage? I think it's right on the edge now; if the house advantage were any higher the game would die.
As far as the blackjack shoe, I don't see it. For every card counter there are two dozen players who hit or stand seemingly at random. Shufflemaster would have a far, far harder time accounting for those players; why ignore the huge sample to screw with the tiny sample?
If they are Hole Carders, they are APs. They should, in the long run, turn a profit on 3CP.
July 15th, 2011 at 2:16:25 PM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWiz
The rumors are that since May 2010, the shufflemasters have settings for when there are counters at the table.
I'm envisioning a big rotary switch, like the volume control on an antique radio. Its under the table and the dealer adjusts it by cranking it up or down according to the card counter threat level. At its highest level, TABLE IS ALL COUNTERS, no face cards or 10's are dealt for any reason. And there's a graphic at the top end of the dial showing a pit boss pulling his hair out.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
July 15th, 2011 at 2:26:20 PM
permalink
If they are Hole Carders, they are APs. They should, in the long run, turn a profit on 3CP.
Let's see If you don't see the hole card the HE is 3.37%, if you do see it your Player edge is 3.48%. So bet a $100 a hand for 200
hands, Win 100 and lose 100, 348-347 =$11 profit on $20,000 bet. But of course this assumes you see the dealers hole card 50% of the time. Sure that happens a lot !!
Let's see If you don't see the hole card the HE is 3.37%, if you do see it your Player edge is 3.48%. So bet a $100 a hand for 200
hands, Win 100 and lose 100, 348-347 =$11 profit on $20,000 bet. But of course this assumes you see the dealers hole card 50% of the time. Sure that happens a lot !!
July 15th, 2011 at 2:36:35 PM
permalink
.....
July 15th, 2011 at 2:44:40 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOONot too hard to employ? You don't think ONE person involved in setting this theft up would decide to rat out the casino? I'm not saying the technology doesn't exist, but this would be a major covert undertaking with too many aware to keep it secret!!
That the BIG GAPING HOLE in every conspiracy theory (sorry for the caps, I'm feeling rather visual today): anywhere from a half dozen to hundreds of people are in on it, but no one ever talks. Except one guy who knows someone who knows my roomate's third cousin's sister's nephew's girlfriend's grandfather or something like that.
But to be fair to the OP, I don't think he's caliming a conspiracy on the aprt of the casinos. Just that his count doesn't seem to work with a certain kind of shuffler. I'm puzzled, and wonder at the basis for the claim, but nothing more than that.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
July 15th, 2011 at 2:45:18 PM
permalink
I have had this confirmed as having happened in one casino on the east coast. My two sources are unimpeachable
and well respected in the community. Easter Bunny & Santa Claus !
and well respected in the community. Easter Bunny & Santa Claus !
July 16th, 2011 at 1:02:04 AM
permalink
Again, I am only inclined to believe it because the casinos are taking virtually no measures against the counters
July 21st, 2011 at 4:22:23 PM
permalink
Nobody addressed the related subject matter of how the various gaming commissions approve devices like the dreaded shufflemaster
July 21st, 2011 at 5:01:46 PM
permalink
Any shuffle machine is a creature of certain number of smart engineers at Shuffle Master. They defined (and implemented) "randomness" as they see it. Their randomness would not be the same as how nature has in mind. Yes, hand shuffle by different dealers at different times, on different dates would have come closer to nature's idea of randomness. I don't think SMI intentionally play tricks in the machine. But, human powers are constrained by their brains. So, shit happens. And I shall call that "luck" / "no luck". Engineers may call them "imperfection", "close enough" or "bugs". There is no guilty party.
July 21st, 2011 at 5:19:02 PM
permalink
Quote: RoyalBJAny shuffle machine is a creature of certain number of smart engineers at Shuffle Master. They defined (and implemented) "randomness" as they see it. Their randomness would not be the same as how nature has in mind. Yes, hand shuffle by different dealers at different times, on different dates would have come closer to nature's idea of randomness. I don't think SMI intentionally play tricks in the machine. But, human powers are constrained by their brains. So, shit happens. And I shall call that "luck" / "no luck". Engineers may call them "imperfection", "close enough" or "bugs". There is no guilty party.
Any computer-implemented PRNG suffers from the same lack of true randomness, and that includes every slot machine and video poker machine on the market (with a few minor exceptions). I'm always curious why the players who don't trust shuffle machines at the blackjack table will turn around and play slots or VP for hours without giving it a second thought. The underlying pseudo-random algorithms are exactly the same.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
July 21st, 2011 at 7:24:54 PM
permalink
So are these shufflers really doing mechanical shuffles? I can't imagine why they would. If it is a mechanical shuffle, it would be harder to get true randomness.
Here is what I would do for a completely random shuffle.
Take the 52 cards in, and put each card in a slot numbered 1 to 52. What card goes in each slot does not matter.
Now have your RNG pick a number from 1 to 52.
Grab the card in that slot and it becomes the first card of your shuffled deck.
Move card 52 to the empty slot.
Now the RNG picks a number from 1 to 51.
Grab the card from that slot and put on top of the shuffled deck.
Repeat this process until one card is left, and it goes on the top.
(I stated it this way so you could get a good visual of the concept. In reality, I would not move the card from slot 52 to the empty slot, since mechanical movement is slow. Instead, methods would be deployed to just have the electronics keep track of what slots still had cards, so the RNG would only pick a slot that had a card. Easily done, still 100% random, and much faster than mechanical movements.)
You now have a completely random shuffle, even if you always loaded the shuffler with the cards in the exact same order, since the RNG would presumably pick a different order of numbers each time.
And this shuffle could be completed in 15 to 20 seconds.
Throw in an optical reader, and the shuffler could know the exact makeup of the shuffled deck, if that information was of interest.
Here is what I would do for a completely random shuffle.
Take the 52 cards in, and put each card in a slot numbered 1 to 52. What card goes in each slot does not matter.
Now have your RNG pick a number from 1 to 52.
Grab the card in that slot and it becomes the first card of your shuffled deck.
Move card 52 to the empty slot.
Now the RNG picks a number from 1 to 51.
Grab the card from that slot and put on top of the shuffled deck.
Repeat this process until one card is left, and it goes on the top.
(I stated it this way so you could get a good visual of the concept. In reality, I would not move the card from slot 52 to the empty slot, since mechanical movement is slow. Instead, methods would be deployed to just have the electronics keep track of what slots still had cards, so the RNG would only pick a slot that had a card. Easily done, still 100% random, and much faster than mechanical movements.)
You now have a completely random shuffle, even if you always loaded the shuffler with the cards in the exact same order, since the RNG would presumably pick a different order of numbers each time.
And this shuffle could be completed in 15 to 20 seconds.
Throw in an optical reader, and the shuffler could know the exact makeup of the shuffled deck, if that information was of interest.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
July 21st, 2011 at 7:38:50 PM
permalink
I saw one once that did. Refer to my post here.Quote: RaleighCrapsSo are these shufflers really doing mechanical shuffles?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
July 21st, 2011 at 8:06:43 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearI saw one once that did. Refer to my post here.
I agree the early shufflers were mechanical, and your post had mentioned it was years ago when you saw the internals. What I was trying to ask was if the new ones popping up everywhere are still relying on mechanical shuffles. Sorry for the ambiguity, although I think that is the wrong word. Where's mkl when you need him?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
July 21st, 2011 at 11:04:40 PM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizIf there was a button for when there are counters at the table, it wouldn't necessarily be illegal. It could just be considered a secondary type of "random" shuffle.
I think it would be illegal. ANY kind of stacked, advantage, or weighted suffle is a no-no. Gaming would say "No!" and it would not be approved.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
July 21st, 2011 at 11:18:03 PM
permalink
Then all hand shuffles of less than 7 would be illegal, and they are obviously not. Just a few months ago, in her column in Parade Magazine, Marilyn vos Savant (The world's smartest woman, LOL), said it requires a minimum of 7 shuffles to get proper randomness, and no one does this:
I can't seem to find the original Feb. 20, 2011 post, but here is the follow up. There is a link to the original, but I can't find it among the pages.
http://www.parade.com/askmarilyn/2011/03/Perfect-Shuffling-22.html
Well, the link didn't show up as a link, so I guess you will have to copy and paste. I tried to follow instructions for making a link, but it didn't work.
I can't seem to find the original Feb. 20, 2011 post, but here is the follow up. There is a link to the original, but I can't find it among the pages.
http://www.parade.com/askmarilyn/2011/03/Perfect-Shuffling-22.html
Well, the link didn't show up as a link, so I guess you will have to copy and paste. I tried to follow instructions for making a link, but it didn't work.
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:07:56 AM
permalink
Persi Diaconis, a Stanford statistician who often looks at common "random" events such as coin tossing or card shuffling, deemed seven as the optimal shuffles but warned that eight was bad, I believe.
As with everything else involving 'random' its often a matter of 'random enough".
I think the original poster's observation is that of a sudden change from winning to losing. If the condition exists then inquiry is proper but blaming it on the shuffle can be no different than blaming it on anything else. The casino's sudden change of luck might be just that.
As with everything else involving 'random' its often a matter of 'random enough".
I think the original poster's observation is that of a sudden change from winning to losing. If the condition exists then inquiry is proper but blaming it on the shuffle can be no different than blaming it on anything else. The casino's sudden change of luck might be just that.
July 22nd, 2011 at 1:15:29 AM
permalink
If you are good, you don't win consistently for 9 years when you play 250 x per year, then can't for one whole year due to weird luck. And above all, remember the casinos are taking no measures against guys who spread from $25 to $400
July 22nd, 2011 at 3:31:19 AM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizThen all hand shuffles of less than 7 would be illegal, and they are obviously not.
Not quite True - and Junior - you aren't speaking for the gaming commission here - but yes - Statistically, it is a thorough shuffle of 7 actions really randomizes a playing deck: split, riffle, split, etc.
HOWEVER, it is the deliberate act of "setting up" a deck for specific playing characteristic that's the no-no: for a "low count," "high count," etc. A good "rotator-wheel" type continuous shuffling machine can indeed radomize the cards, along with a single "riffle" (an interweave shuffle) that is going into a rotator-wheel type shuffler, such as on Pai Gow Poker or single deck BJ, or Crazy4Poker or Decues Wild or other single deck games.
By manually dealt single-deck games, a good Four of five "splits and riffles" (interweaving the deck after deck cuts in blind good faith, etc.) - are sufficient to provide a good-faith randomization.
It's when you "set up" a deck to be dealt - based on count, card location, or ANTHING like that, machine or by hand, - that you're committing malfeasance.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 2nd, 2011 at 3:15:45 PM
permalink
Gee whiz, if you're scared by the old-fashioned CSMs, fear now, the Ace machines, that actually know the cards that are being dealt!!! Ahhh!!! In Pai Gow, they pick the number, and the always deal full houses to the dealer! Run away!!!! In 3CP, the straight flushes are mucked unless being dealt to the dealer. But seriously, the PepperMill in Reno (great casino, by the way) had these Ace machines everywhere, and I didn't lose. Even the fortune players were getting dealt straight flushes and four of a kinds!
Look folks, ShuffleMaster has no reason or interest to create a machine that ups the house advantage by a crooked shuffle. They would lose their gaming license and ANY credibility if they were caught. Given the number of casino dealers, pit bosses, and even shufflemaster employees that come and go, it ain't happening. The likelihood of it happening is about the same as a faked moon landing, or a flat earth, IMO.
If you're losing all the time, you're a victim of the negative side of the variance curve, or don't know how to bet, or a combination of the two. I would recommend that you hook up with mrjjj (Ken) and make the $10 - $20K a week that he's pulling in. After all, the roulette wheel ain't no Shufflemaster.
Look folks, ShuffleMaster has no reason or interest to create a machine that ups the house advantage by a crooked shuffle. They would lose their gaming license and ANY credibility if they were caught. Given the number of casino dealers, pit bosses, and even shufflemaster employees that come and go, it ain't happening. The likelihood of it happening is about the same as a faked moon landing, or a flat earth, IMO.
If you're losing all the time, you're a victim of the negative side of the variance curve, or don't know how to bet, or a combination of the two. I would recommend that you hook up with mrjjj (Ken) and make the $10 - $20K a week that he's pulling in. After all, the roulette wheel ain't no Shufflemaster.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
August 2nd, 2011 at 4:17:04 PM
permalink
Quote: JuniorWizJust a few months ago, in her column in Parade Magazine, Marilyn vos Savant (The world's smartest woman, LOL), said it requires a minimum of 7 shuffles to get proper randomness, and no one does this:
This makes me wonder how to set up a statistical test for a random shuffle. I thought about this a little and the best idea I can some up with would be to count how many cards remained consecutive and in the same order (reversing would be acceptable). You should expect one set in a random shuffle, but I think a shuffle was too short would result in more. One downside is that it is not very robust to test on something where the mean outcome is one. Then again, I could just perform the test lots of times, but that would get time consuming. Any other ideas?
Follow up: Since posting this I found the academic paper that concludes that seven riffle shuffles are needed to randomize a deck: Trailing the Dovetail Shuffle to its Lair (PDF). The math is rather heavy, but it looks at the number of "rising sequences." It may take some time for me to digest it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 2nd, 2011 at 6:34:25 PM
permalink
Is there a "perfect" or "optimal" random state? Every PRNG is going to produce sequences of "clumps" (same values or sequenced series). It would be expected, and suspicious if not included.
If there is not an "optimal" state to compare to, then how do you measure the "randomness" of a particular shuffle?
If there is not an "optimal" state to compare to, then how do you measure the "randomness" of a particular shuffle?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
August 2nd, 2011 at 8:30:48 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaIf there is not an "optimal" state to compare to, then how do you measure the "randomness" of a particular shuffle?
That is what I'd like to know.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 3rd, 2011 at 4:51:51 AM
permalink
7 shuffles to get proper randomness? Compared to what? What's a "shuffle"? What typical people do: Just cut and riffle, or what dealers do: cut, riffle, stripe?
Perhaps that refers to a new / in sequence deck. For that, I believe that 'more than typical' number of shuffles is required. The cards are washed, then shuffled extra times when the cards are changed. It might be less than 7 but isn't that good enough?
I'll accept that for just riffles, seven might be required for a new deck.
But once a deck has been in play, who can remember the exact sequence? Therefore, that deck is already randomized, so far less than 7 shuffles is required for a new random sequence.
Perhaps that refers to a new / in sequence deck. For that, I believe that 'more than typical' number of shuffles is required. The cards are washed, then shuffled extra times when the cards are changed. It might be less than 7 but isn't that good enough?
I'll accept that for just riffles, seven might be required for a new deck.
But once a deck has been in play, who can remember the exact sequence? Therefore, that deck is already randomized, so far less than 7 shuffles is required for a new random sequence.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:11:52 AM
permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba
If there is not an "optimal" state to compare to, then how do you measure the "randomness" of a particular shuffle?
Reminds me of comparing a real roulette wheel to
a computer RNG. If you don't have a winning
method, how can you compare the two in
the short term, where the actual bets are made.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 3rd, 2011 at 5:33:10 AM
permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba
If there is not an "optimal" state to compare to, then how do you measure the "randomness" of a particular shuffle?
"Ramdomness of a particular shuffle" has about as much meaning to me as "ramdomness of a particular number" :)
I think, the idea should be that you shuffle, record the sequence of the cards, shuffle again, record the new sequence (append it to the end of the previous one), shuffle again ... etc.
In the end, you'll end up with a long sequence of cards, that should be random. There are many methods to test that - like chi-square test.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 3rd, 2011 at 7:49:20 AM
permalink
Compare the new position of every card to its old position, and see if there is a correlation on the whole set. It should be close to zero.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:00:27 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitCompare the new position of every card to its old position, and see if there is a correlation on the whole set. It should be close to zero.
You could pass that test and still have a very non-random shuffle. For example, just moving the top card to the bottom.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:26:53 AM
permalink
Use a simple serial correlation test. The conditional probability of card B following card A must be equal for all A and B. If not, you have a biased shuffle.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
