Counting Virtual Blackjack

Quote: sabre

This is by far the smartest thing you've posted in this thread.

Quote: endermike

So, I had some time off yesterday and I built a simulator for this problem. The main question answered by these simulations is how accurate your estimate of the shuffle point would be after a certain amount of time.

I operated under the assumption that it deals 208 cards, then shuffles and deals a new 208 even if that point is midround. If there is interest, I will expand the simulator to run as if the shuffles will only take place between rounds. I would guess that this change will actually make it easier to find the SP. There are two reasons for this. First, we will now see more than 208 cards per shoe which makes it easier to find clusters of cards which imply there had to be a shuffle between them. Further, instead of the SP being after any card in the round, it can now only take place between rounds. On the other hand it will be mobile, but once found it is locked into since we can count the cards per round and always know when a new 208 (or more) have been dealt.

Anyways...

Here are the results for 100,000 replications:

Size of current SP window	After 3 shoes	After 6 shoes	After 9 shoes
1-5 cards	23.187	68.238	89.278
6-10 cards	29.447	26.097	10.255
11-15 cards	21.206	4.775	0.457
16-20 cards	12.884	0.771	0.009
21-25 cards	6.909	0.106	0.000
26-30 cards	3.403	0.011	0.001
31-35 cards	1.589	0.002	0.000
36-40 cards	0.739	0.000	0.000
>40 cards	0.636	0.000	0.000

Quote: endermike

I simulated on a computer. This method in practice works with just pen, paper and time.

After 6 shoes, we know the shuffle point within 5 cards 68% of the time. We know it to 6-10 cards, 11-15 cards, 16 or more cards 26%, 5%, and 1% of the time respectively.

Quote: endermike

This method in practice works with just pen, paper and time.

Quote: BizzyB

So you have simmed your manual method and determined it succeeds in determining a previously unknown shuffle point. But what about the gaming law that seems to say the count is always zero? I'm curious as to your take on it.

Quote: endermike

I would use, for a back of the envelope estimate, that doing this in practice by oneself would take about 40 minutes per shoe with all the tracking (10 seconds per card which is probably more than is needed, but let's play it safe). This is the major disadvantage of this method. It would take hours worth of effort to guarantee with decent certainty knowledge of the SP. This is why a team mate to trade off with would be critical to doing this in practice. However, mathematically it is feasible.

Quote: BizzyB

But what about the gaming law that seems to say the count is always zero? I'm curious as to your take on it.

Quote: The law in question

2. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or
losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game
outcome must be constant.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable
dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method
of play.

Quote: The law why I would not try this law in NV

NRS 465.075  Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited.  It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:

1.  Projects the outcome of the game;

2.  Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;

3.  Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or

4.  Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,

Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.

Quote: BizzyB

Interesting.

Quote: BizzyB

$1000 minimum wager. I'm gonna bet $5 dollars? No. It's fair to say I'm more confident than you are.

Quote: PlayHunter

I`ve heard some opinions (don`t remember where, and more than sure I do not think it was proved) that Virtual Blackjack machines are using separate set of decks for each player in part and also separate set of decks for the dealer. - How this would affect things?

So for example, the game says it uses 6 decks and shuffle when 4 decks out. This can be that you have 6 decks and deals out 4 of them, and also the dealer have another 6 decks and deal out 4 of them (separate sets). The same it goes for each seat at the table...

Quote: BizzyB

My interpretation is that counting cannot work, I tend to think because of the RNG.

Quote: BizzyB

You do not seem to be detered. I am genuinely curious as to why. BTW--I am not interested in convincing you not to do it, that discussion is over with. Just wondering.

Quote: endermike

You quoted PlayHunter, who has only made one post in this thread. I assume that the first part of your post is directed to PH and the second part is toward me. Is that correct? If so, I will reply and try to elucidate my arguments. Otherwise, I will consider it enough that you have decided to leave this thread to those who are willing to embrace analysis.

Quote: BizzyB

There is no difference between a VLT and a non-VLT, except that the secondary cards are randomly selected after the hand is begun instead of before.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

No, there is a difference between VLT and non-VLT.

In the VLT case, they might decide that I have to lose this hand. So they deal me a hard 17 vs a 10, with a 10 in the hole. They expect me to stand. But, suppose I decide to hit? With VLT they could just give me a 10 and have me bust, so I still lose.

But, according to the state of Nevada regulations, since this has to match the probabilities of a real deck of cards, there has to be some probability that I draw a 4 to my 17 (making it impossible for me to lose).

Furthermore, what if they want me to win this hand, and they deal me a 20 vs a 10 (7 in the hole). They expect me to stand. But suppose I decide to hit! Now (according to the law) there must be an overwhelming probability that I bust, and therefore lose.

This is why with VLT video poker they have the "genies" or whatever that replace your drawn cards with good stuff when you throw away a winning hand. They would need something similar for VLT blackjack (actually it would be really hard to pull off, since I could decide to double, split, etc -- with VP you cannot change your bet mid-hand so it's much easier to design)

Quote: BizzyB

There has never been a VLT version of blackjack. Apples to oranges. You might disagree with me still, but you are helping to make my somewhat unclear point. I think this is very similar to VLT, but not the same thing. If blackjack is not VLT, how can it be an illegal VLT?

Quote: BizzyB

... I have never heard that theory before. But this is speculation. That regulation I posted is real.

Quote: DRich

I believe there are jurisdictions where one players actions are not allowed to have any influence on other players outcomes. In these jurisdictions I have heard that each player is playing out of their own deck/shoe. I would assume the Dealer has their own too.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

My point is that there is no way to predetermine whether you win or lose before you get dealt the cards, and still be in accordance with the Nevada regulations. Your choices have to play a part in the outcome, and if those choices take into account which cards are available to be drawn, the odds can be changed.

It's similar to video poker, when you take penalty-card situations into account when deciding which card to hold. Throwing away a couple of hearts when you hold only the Ace of Hearts in DDB changes your probability of getting a flush, which changes the value of holding that Ace of hearts (as opposed to holding the Ah in a hand with no other hearts in it)

I think that you are misunderstanding the part of the regulation that you quoted. It's meant to say that the RNG can't have a pattern that allows you to guess what numbers are coming up next -- ie, they have to pass tests for randomness. This does not mean that the depiction of the gaming device itself does not follow the same restrictions that would exist in real life, and it does not mean that those restrictions don't let you determine something about your probability of winning or losing. In this case, the gaming device is a deck of cards (or a shoe of multiple decks of cards) and the restriction is that the cards are drawn without replacement, so the probability of drawing a particular card varies depending on which previous cards have been drawn.

If the regulation was as you are interpreting it, then video poker would be illegal (since by paying attention to the cards that you are dealt before the draw, you can determine what set of cards are available to be drawn from, thus changing the odds of the game and sometimes the best strategy -- these are known as "penalty cards")

Quote: BizzyB

The provision I quoted a few pages ago specifically said deck composition and "count" and used the quotation marks. I think with your interpretation, a manufacturer could indeed make a non-random generator (assuming that was the only provision prohibiting it), then successfully argue the provision did not clearly prohibit doing so. In video poker, to my knowledge the cards are shuffled every hand--youre taking my interpretation to mean that no electronic card game whatsoever is allowed, unless the player plays his hand blind. However, I guess this will satisfy my curiousity.

Quote: BizzyB

The provision I quoted a few pages ago specifically said deck composition and "count" and used the quotation marks. I think with your interpretation, a manufacturer could indeed make a non-random generator (assuming that was the only provision prohibiting it), then successfully argue the provision did not clearly prohibit doing so. In video poker, to my knowledge the cards are shuffled every hand--youre taking my interpretation to mean that no electronic card game whatsoever is allowed, unless the player plays his hand blind--the law clearly states that the knowledge must come from 'any previous outcome'. However, I guess this will satisfy my curiousity.

Quote: BizzyB

The provision I quoted a few pages ago specifically said deck composition and "count" and used the quotation marks. I think with your interpretation, a manufacturer could indeed make a non-random generator (assuming that was the only provision prohibiting it), then successfully argue the provision did not clearly prohibit doing so. In video poker, to my knowledge the cards are shuffled every hand--youre warping my interpretation to mean that no electronic card game whatsoever is allowed, unless the player plays his hand blind--the law clearly states that the knowledge must come from 'any previous outcome'. However, I guess this will satisfy my curiousity.

Quote: BizzyB

Re-posted in case Axiom missed it. Edited post page 4. You can disregard it Mike, nothing can stop your plan.

Nevada Gaming Regulation 14.040(2) "Gaming devices that use a software random number generator (RNG) as part of a random number selection process to produce a predetermined set of outcomes must....2. Prevent the use of this information for the purposes of tracking deck composition and 'count' that would otherwise result in a violation of NRS 465.075."

Quote: endermike

I quoted the exact laws the phrase "deck composition" and the word "count" appear in neither. Cite your sources.

Quote: The law in question which BizzyB miquoted

14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices.
All gaming devices submitted for approval:
1. Must theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts
wagered, which must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.
(a) Gaming devices that may be affected by player skill must meet this standard when using a
method of play that will provide the greatest return to the player over a period of continuous play.
(b) The chairman may waive the 75 percent standard if the manufacturer can show to the
chairman’s satisfaction that this requirement inhibits design of the device or is inappropriate under
the circumstances, the device theoretically pays out at least 75 percent of all wagers made when
all wagers are played equally, and the device otherwise meets the standards of subsections 2
through 6. A waiver will be effective when the manufacturer receives written notification from the
chairman that this standard will be waived pursuant to this paragraph. A waiver of this standard
pursuant to this paragraph is not an approval of the device.
2. Must use a random selection process to determine the game outcome of each play of a
game. The random selection process must meet 95 percent confidence limits using a standard
chi-squared test for goodness of fit.
(a) Each possible permutation or combination of game elements which produce winning or
losing game outcomes must be available for random selection at the initiation of each play.
(b) For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical
probability of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the
mathematical probability of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game. For other
gaming devices, the mathematical probability of a symbol appearing in a position in any game
outcome must be constant.
(c) The selection process must not produce detectable patterns of game elements or detectable
dependency upon any previous game outcome, the amount wagered, or upon the style or method
of play.
3. Must display an accurate representation of the game outcome. After selection of the game
outcome, the gaming device must not make a variable secondary decision which affects the
result shown to the player.
4. Gaming devices connected to a common payoff schedule shall:
(a) All be of the same denomination and have equivalent odds of winning the common payoff
schedule/common award; or
(b) If of different denominations, equalize the expected value of winning the payoff
schedule/common award on the various denominations by setting the odds of winning the payoff
schedule in proportion to the amount wagered or by requiring the same wager to win the payoff
schedule/award regardless of the device’s denomination. The method of equalizing the expected
value of winning the payoff schedule/award shall be conspicuously displayed on each device
connected to the common payoff schedule/common award. For the purposes of this requirement,
equivalent is defined as within a 5% tolerance for expected value and no more than a 1% tolerance on return to player or payback.
5. Must display:
(a) The rules of play;
(b) The amounts to be paid on winning wagers;
(c) Any rake-off percentage or any fee charged to play a game; and
(d) Any monetary wagering limits for games representative of live gambling games.
6. Must not automatically alter pay tables or any function of the device based on internal
computation of the hold percentage.
7. Must meet the technical standards adopted pursuant to section 14.050.
8. Except for devices granted a waiver pursuant to subsections 1(b), or 8, each gaming device
exposed for play in the State of Nevada by any gaming licensee, including an operator of a slot
machine route, must meet the standards and requirements set forth within subsection 1, as
though the gaming device had been submitted for approval subsequent to September 28, 1989.
9. The chairman of the board or his designee may waive the requirements of subsection 7 for a
licensee exposing a gaming device to the public
for play, if the licensee can demonstrate to the
chairman’s satisfaction that:
(a) After the waiver the aggregate theoretical payout for all amounts wagered on all gaming
devices exposed for play by the licensee at a single establishment meets the 75 percent standard
of subsection 1, and
(b) The licensee is unable to bring the device into compliance with the requirements of
subsection 1, because of excessive cost or the unavailability of parts.
(Adopted: 7/89. Amended: 9/89; 10/92; 7/10. Effective:1/1/93.Amended: 12/11)

Quote: BizzyB

Regulation 14.040(2)(b) for 'previous outcome'

Quote: BizzyB

OK I found it. It is the same rule. It is a policy referendum that clarifies what the rule means.

http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3450

Quote: The thing in question

Gaming devices that use a software random number generator (RNG) as part of the random selection process to produce a predetermined set of outcomes (i.e. a shuffled deck of cards) must
1. Sufficiently encrypt or otherwise protect this information from being accessible to anyone. In addition, video poker games must not determine replacement cards prior to the player selecting hold cards and initiating a draw.
2. Prevent the use of this information for the purposes of tracking deck composition and "count" that would otherwise result in a violation of NRS 465.075.

Quote: NRS 465.075

  Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited.  It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:

1.  Projects the outcome of the game;

2.  Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;

3.  Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or

4.  Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,

Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 970; A 2011, 216; 2013, 1317)

Quote: endermike

Seems like a slam dunk...

[Lee Corso voice] NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND!

Quote: NRS 465.075

  Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited.  It is unlawful for any person to use, possess with the intent to use or assist another person in using or possessing with the intent to use any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment or any game that is offered by a licensee or affiliate, including, without limitation, a device that:

1.  Projects the outcome of the game;

2.  Keeps track of cards played or cards prepared for play in the game;

3.  Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or

4.  Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,

Ê except as may be made available as part of an approved game or otherwise permitted by the Commission.

(Added to NRS by 1985, 970; A 2011, 216; 2013, 1317)

We are talking about pen and paper like in baccarat. Hence NRS 465.075 does not apply, so the critical passage of the law you cited does not apply.

Lawyered. (How I Met Your Mother reference)

Quote: endermike

Whoops, you are right. I read it wrong. By what your cited what is written on that machine is covered (I think). So the logical conclusion is that the machine is not in NV or that is does not follow what is written on it.

However, the work I was doing is petty far off in left field and it would come as no suprise to find that the designers assumed since the player didn't know the shuffle point when you sit down the game is uncountable. They easily could have assumed no one would be insane enough to try the methods outlined by Axiom and myself. It is totally possible that this kind of thing could he slipped through the cracks.

Quote: endermike

Whoops, you are right. I read it wrong. By what your cited what is written on that machine is covered (I think). So the logical conclusion is that the machine is not in NV or that is does not follow what is written on it.

However, the work I was doing is petty far off in left field and it would come as no suprise to find that the designers assumed since the player didn't know the shuffle point when you sit down the game is uncountable. They easily could have assumed no one would be insane enough to try the methods outlined by Axiom and myself. It is totally possible that this kind of thing could he slipped through the cracks.

Quote: AxelWolf

people are insane enough to do this, and there are people who don't need a pen and paper to do so. It has been thought of and done before. THE INSANE PART IS TALKING ABOUT IT PUBLICLY I cringed when you started to tell the entire world especially the casinos. Oh well, good game go back.

The rules you need, the amount you need to bet, the number of people needed to make this all worth while is difficult. Casinos change the machines once they take a hit.

Quote: BizzyB

So are we actually in semi-agreement after 10 pages?

Quote: endermike

I agree with your law (This machine is not in NV, does not follow the rules as written, or [by our reading] is in violation of the law) and you agree with my math (shuffle point is findable and exploitable under OP's rules)...I think so.

A happy ending.

Quote: sevencard2003

i guarantee u these machines are countable. i used to not know how to count the shufflemaster kind, only the dealers angels kind that showed u the shuffle. in fact i won so much on the dealers angels in el cortez last aug-oct the el cortez fixed the dealers angels so u can no longer see the shuffle point but at least they didnt eliminate the 5x comp days. (that brings it over 100% without counting). they also got rid of standing on soft 17 and started hitting it. they fixed it so it gave only 25% penetration instead of 38%. yet i still won, but it kept getting harder and smaller in scale. for about $150,000 in coin in, i was up about $7000 which is a lot of money for me. almost doubled my roll up to $17000.

i was only supposed to win a far lesser amount, i just ran hot. and thats why the management couldnt understand why i kept winning. they watched my play thouroughly and quit letting me get FREE hotel rooms.

but anyway this is about the kind u cannot see the shuffle. specifically the shufflemaster type like the Pioneer in laughlin and the Tahoe biltmore in crystal bay. i love the tahoe biltmore. spend a ton of time there, and what i love is i am about the ONLY customer in the place most nights 11pm to 9am. so i always have the machine to myself. i can play 1 spot, 2 spots, 5 spots and not have to deal with others and can vary the number of spots and amounts i bet based on the count.

my rolls going back up, im back to $15,800 from $10,300 in the past 2 months. and ive got a TON of tickets for the weekly and final drawings. whats really helped is a system for tracking the count a guy told me who knew of my situation and wanted to help. (he knew my bankroll isnt a threat to anyone else or to the casino but would do me worlds of good).

so its an unbalanced count, and not a true count just a running count, but its highly accurate and now i know exactly what to do is close calls like 12v3 or 4, 16 vs 10, etc. and it periodically lets me adjusts back towards zero kind of like a shuffle.

Quote: sevencard2003

i guarantee u these machines are countable. i used to not know how to count the shufflemaster kind, only the dealers angels kind that showed u the shuffle. in fact i won so much on the dealers angels in el cortez last aug-oct the el cortez fixed the dealers angels so u can no longer see the shuffle point but at least they didnt eliminate the 5x comp days. (that brings it over 100% without counting). they also got rid of standing on soft 17 and started hitting it. they fixed it so it gave only 25% penetration instead of 38%. yet i still won, but it kept getting harder and smaller in scale. for about $150,000 in coin in, i was up about $7000 which is a lot of money for me. almost doubled my roll up to $17000.

i was only supposed to win a far lesser amount, i just ran hot. and thats why the management couldnt understand why i kept winning. they watched my play thouroughly and quit letting me get FREE hotel rooms.

but anyway this is about the kind u cannot see the shuffle. specifically the shufflemaster type like the Pioneer in laughlin and the Tahoe biltmore in crystal bay. i love the tahoe biltmore. spend a ton of time there, and what i love is i am about the ONLY customer in the place most nights 11pm to 9am. so i always have the machine to myself. i can play 1 spot, 2 spots, 5 spots and not have to deal with others and can vary the number of spots and amounts i bet based on the count.

my rolls going back up, im back to $15,800 from $10,300 in the past 2 months. and ive got a TON of tickets for the weekly and final drawings. whats really helped is a system for tracking the count a guy told me who knew of my situation and wanted to help. (he knew my bankroll isnt a threat to anyone else or to the casino but would do me worlds of good).

so its an unbalanced count, and not a true count just a running count, but its highly accurate and now i know exactly what to do is close calls like 12v3 or 4, 16 vs 10, etc. and it periodically lets me adjusts back towards zero kind of like a shuffle.

Quote: AxelWolf

So someone finally got to the Elcortez machine. It's been their for a long time. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. I'm surprised you had no competition on point multiplier days. This was on our to do list but never got around to it, various things came up.

We played it a few times here and there.

Axiom and I discussed doing something together on it until he fell off the grid.

I wondered what their tolerance level was. Bet to big and it's gone within a week bet to small and its not worth it.

What levels were you betting at? I know at one point you could bet fairly high Were you spreading to multiple machines?.

You didn't mention mail or the other promotions there. Are you intentionally leaving that out?

--------------------------------------------------------
Out of sight out of mind.

I haven't thought about them for a while now. Thanks for the reminder.

By writing about this publicly, does it not concern you others will realize there's an good opportunity who become competition? One doesn't even have to win on the BJ machines for the casinos to take notice and change them. That's happened many times in the past.

Certainly this post will be a dissuasion among me my partners. Now knowing someone is out there who's activity taking advantage of them, someone with the ability to get the casinos attention and entice rules changes, we may not put it on the back burner, especially knowing it may have a short shelf life.