Shuffle master truth solved
Quote: MrTEEI’ve read some of the comment you posted. The shuffle master is rigged but not illegal due to % of pay out…I mean even though if we accuse them of cheating, we can’t do anything about it. The gaming commissions and the city/state want the casino to stay open to get that taxes money…gaming commissions get paid by the casinos…I don’t see why would they want to shut down their own bread and butter…
Lol. Here we go again. Where do these people come from???
ZCore13
Quote: gordonm888The text below is from a patent assigned to Shufflemaster in 2002/2003. US Patent US6651982 B2.
Read especially the beginning of claim 47 and then skip down to claim 49 and Claim 51 (in bold fonts.) Shufflemaster patented this technology for accepting an unshuffled group of cards and arranging the cards into either
a) a random sequence, or
b) a sequence matching the original order of the cards, or
c) a predetermined order or sequence.
I have read further. The selection of "random sequence or new sequence or predetermined sequence" is determined by a controller microchip. If the controller microchip were to be remotely switched (via wireless) to a "predetermined sequence," I believe that it would be completely undetectable to dealers and all floor staff, service technicians, etc. (except by the skewed pattern of the dealt cards.) So, WOV forum members could be posting in good faith but not have any way of knowing what is going on.
To be fair, the fact that Shufflemaster has developed and patented this technology does not mean that it has indeed been installed into their MD3 shufflers or into any given shuffler device. But it seems pretty clear that it could be installed. I just don't know. I think it is appropriate to continue to ask questions.
(personal note): I am a research engineer and formerly the Chief Technology Officer of Oak Ridge National Lab. We had a 300 person Instrumentation and Controls division that developed and manufactured customized controller microchips for the military, national security agencies, NASA, and industry. I know something about this subject.
Taken from Patent US6651982 B2 assigned to Shufflemaster (filed 2002, published 2003)
47. A method of arranging a group of cards into a desired order in a computer controlled automatic card shuffler, the card shuffler comprising an infeed tray, a feed mechanism, a card arranging area, a retaining device for suspending cards in the card arranging area, a lower support surface in the card arranging area and an elevator for raising and lowering the lower support surface, the method comprising:
a) assigning each card in the infeed tray a final order;
b) feeding each card individually into the card arranging area, wherein the lower support surface is lowered beneath an elevation of the card feed mechanism when the computer instructs that the card being fed is to be placed on top of the stack,
c) suspending all cards in the card arranging area by means of the retaining device when the computer instructs that the card being fed is to be placed on the bottom of the stack, and
d) instructing the elevator to move, causing the lower support surface to adjust to a preselected elevation, retaining a subgroup of cards above a feed elevation and lowering the lower surface, creating an opening, and placing a card between the subgroup of suspended cards and the remaining cards supported by the lower support surface wherein steps b), c) and d) are performed while an automatically moveable cover is closed over at least one of the infeed tray and the stack.
48. The method of claim 47, wherein the final order is random.
49. The method of claim 47, wherein the final order is predetermined.
50. The method of claim 49, wherein the final order is an original playing card pack order.
51. The method of claim 47 and further comprising the step of reading a suit and rank of each card prior to feeding the cards into the card arranging area.
I hold several Patents myself and I understand that the claims are the critical parts of any patent application because they actually verbally describe what is new and novel in the device or system being protected.
Somebody please explain to me why any “random“ shuffler would need a “predetermined sequence“! That sounds fraudulent to me just based on those two words.
Quote: camaplI appreciate your addition to this thread - background, research, and conclusions.
I only find one issue, and that is the statute in Nevada requiring game makers who sell to Nevada casinos to make ALL of their games compliant with Nevada law regardless of where they are sold.
However, this does not necessarily contradict your conclusions. The existence of a patent does not directly indicate the existence of the product that it describes. Just because they included a clause regarding “a deck in a user-defined sequence,” does not automatically mean that any such feature exists in any of their machines.
I believe we still need proof.
What would be interesting to me is if the stack of cards were placed in the machine upside down. That way there would be no possible way of recognition of the value of the cards themselves.
Of course, without a machine at our disposal that isn’t possible but nonetheless it’s just a thought.
No legitimate shuffler should have or need any means of identifying the value of the cards. By definition if the machine knows which cards are which, then it’s impossible to consider it a random shuffle.
Quote: bcmarshallWhat would be interesting to me is if the stack of cards were placed in the machine upside down. That way there would be no possible way of recognition of the value of the cards themselves.
Of course, without a machine at our disposal that isn’t possible but nonetheless it’s just a thought.
No legitimate shuffler should have or need any means of identifying the value of the cards. By definition if the machine knows which cards are which, then it’s impossible to consider it a random shuffle.
I’ve been here for years trying to tell people this stuff
What I’ve found is that - people don’t care because they are apparently taking advantage of the sequences that come out of the shuffler to their advantage so yeah
Quote: bcmarshall
Somebody please explain to me why any “random“ shuffler would need a “predetermined sequence“! That sounds fraudulent to me just based on those two words.
Backroom usage, to sort played decks to new deck order.
My understanding is that the sort mode is noticeably slower and sounds different.
Quote: bcmarshall.
No legitimate shuffler should have or need any means of identifying the value of the cards. By definition if the machine knows which cards are which, then it’s impossible to consider it a random shuffle.
Auditing the deck in play.
10H missing, 6C extra, etc.
Quote: Dieter
Backroom usage, to sort played decks to new deck order.
My understanding is that the sort mode is noticeably slower and sounds different.
Auditing the deck in play.
10H missing, 6C extra, etc.
yes but this person is referencing one patent
i assure you that the patents that shuffle master owns - are citing the patents that are the shady patents
I refer you to this thread created by me
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/32088-i-think-i-have-found-the-patent-which-describes-how-csm-asm-etc-cheat/
and this patent which is not owned by shuffle master but is highly cited by them
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5431399A/en
Quote: heatmapyes but this person is referencing one patent
i assure you that the patents that shuffle master owns - are citing the patents that are the shady patents
I dislike most shuffling machines too.
At least some of them do an honest shuffle.
I'm simply pointing out that there are some legitimate reasons for some of the features of the machine.
Quote: DieterBackroom usage, to sort played decks to new deck order.
My understanding is that the sort mode is noticeably slower and sounds different.
I’m sorry, but that sounds like a completely different device than a shuffler to me. I wouldn’t want to knowingly have a shuffler that could recognize cards.
Of course, I don’t own a casino either.
Quote: bcmarshallI’m sorry, but that sounds like a completely different device than a shuffler to me. I wouldn’t want to knowingly have a shuffler that could recognize cards.
Of course, I don’t own a casino either.
Not wanting to have a smart shuffler is a fair point.
As for completely different devices, they both take a stack of cards in, reorder the stack, and output a stack of cards.
I believe the manufacturer does make a variety of backroom devices, but the shufflers have at least some of the capabilities.
There are carnival shufflers that can record the cards dealt to each position. This is generally to minimize hand mucking to create royal flushes or other top payout hands, and isn't inherently evil.
Quote: DieterNot wanting to have a smart shuffler is a fair point.
As for completely different devices, they both take a stack of cards in, reorder the stack, and output a stack of cards.
I believe the manufacturer does make a variety of backroom devices, but the shufflers have at least some of the capabilities.
There are carnival shufflers that can record the cards dealt to each position. This is generally to minimize hand mucking to create royal flushes or other top payout hands, and isn't inherently evil.
Perhaps not, but to me a true random shuffler will randomly select a card, say the 82nd in the stack, and reposition it to another randomly generated place, such as 211. Then the next random number, 11, becomes 182. There just seems no need for any recognition to create a truly random shuffle, and by definition, if the cards are intentionally positioned in any way it's no longer random.
Quote: DieterAuditing the deck in play.
10H missing, 6C extra, etc.
Now that I can wrap my head around, except that the language of the patent claims specifies a "predetermined sequence". That's not auditing to me.
Quote: bcmarshallPerhaps not, but to me a true random shuffler will randomly select a card, say the 82nd in the stack, and reposition it to another randomly generated place, such as 211. Then the next random number, 11, becomes 182. There just seems no need for any recognition to create a truly random shuffle, and by definition, if the cards are intentionally positioned in any way it's no longer random.
My understanding is that the bottom card in the stack is conveyed to a random slot in the output stack, rather than doing a series of position swaps.
Randomness is equivalent.
Quote: bcmarshallNow that I can wrap my head around, except that the language of the patent claims specifies a "predetermined sequence". That's not auditing to me.
Agreed. Separate functions.
It is conceivable that someone may want an output sort of A-K A-K A-K A-K or AAAA22223333... instead of new deck A-K A-K K-A K-A.
The capability of the device is not inherently nefarious.
