Systems, methods and articles to facilitate playing card games with selectable odds

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8550464B2/en

using the playing card handling system, providing at least one of a set of house odds or a house advantage that includes corresponding different house odds or a different house advantage for a particular player position to which a subset of cards is to be dealt from the playing card handling system during a round of play than another player position to which a different subset of the subsets of playing cards is to be dealt from the card handling system during the same round of play.

One or more displays may provide an input interface for the dealer 114. For example, the display 126 b may take the form of a touch sensitive display, presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) with one or more user selectable icons. The display 126 b may be positioned within reach (e.g., within approximately 3 feet) of the dealer position 106. Such may allow the dealer 114 to enter odds information for each of the respective player positions 104. For example, the dealer 114 may enter payout or house odds, such as standard blackjack payout or house odds 3:2 for player position 6, while entering non-standard blackjack payout or house odds (e.g., 5:1) for the fourth player position.

The displays 126 c may take the form of touch screen displays presenting a GUI with user selectable icons. The user selectable icons may allow the players 110 to select payout or house odds for a particular hand or game. The user selectable icons may allow the player 110 to select between a set of predefined house odds (e.g., 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, . . . , 100:1, . . . , 1000:1, etc.) or may permit the user to enter a user defined set of payout or house odds. Alternatively, or additionally, other user input devices may be employed, for example, keypads and/or keyboards. The user selected house odds may be displayed on the display 126 b viewable by the dealer 114. In other embodiments, the payout or house odds may be kept secret from the dealer 114 as well as from the other players 110.

FIG. 3 shows a gaming environment 300 in the form of a pit, including a plurality (e.g., four) of gaming tables 102 a-102 d communicatively coupled to the display 126 a via the host computing system 124. The display 126 a may be viewable by some or all of the players 110 at the various gaming tables 102 a-102 d. The displays 126 a may be viewable by other patrons of the casino. Such may advantageously create excitement amongst the patrons. Such also advantageously allows pit bosses or other casino personnel to easily keep track of the payout or house odds selected by the players 110 in the various player positions 104 at multiple tables. The pit bosses or other casino personnel may quickly and easily discern suspect or extraordinarily high payout or house odds selections. Additionally, or alternatively, the host computing system 124 may provide a notification (e.g., audible and/or visual) to casino security personnel.

Patent timeline (this one's for you axel it expires in 2030 and owned by bally and its not for bridge)

2005-09-12
Priority to US71653805P

2006-05-23
Priority to US80292106P

2006-06-30
Application filed by Bally Gaming Inc

2006-06-30
Priority to US11/428,286

2006-09-11
Assigned to BALLY GAMING, INC.

2007-03-15
Publication of US20070057466A1

2013-10-08
Publication of US8550464B2

2013-10-08
Application granted

2013-11-30
Assigned to BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT

2014-12-01
Assigned to BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., BALLY GAMING INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIERRA DESIGN GROUP, BALLY GAMING, INC, SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, INC, ARCADE PLANET, INC.

2017-12-15
Assigned to DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS COLLATERAL AGENT

2018-04-11
Assigned to DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS COLLATERAL AGENT

2019-02-28
Application status is Active

2031-01-04
Adjusted expiration

ive been having ai slop rate the patents that ive looked at according to a few different criteria of these patents that ive looked at in the past and this one took the crown so BUMP

What are the criteria you gave the AI?

hopefully this answer suffices. but the ai made its own criteria up.

Perfect — here’s the **cleaner, more precise redo**, split exactly the way you asked.

### Scoring definitions (tight and explicit)

**Legal strength (0–10)**

* 0–2 = expired / unenforceable today
* 3–6 = weak or indirect (publication, family member active, narrow claims)
* 7–10 = active, enforceable, commercially relevant

**Cheating risk – Bias (0–10)**

> Ability to *subtly skew probabilities* (deck composition, run length, streak shaping) **without producing provable non-randomness**.

**Cheating risk – Stacking (0–10)**

> Ability to *force or heavily influence specific outcomes* (hands, sequences, shoe state).

These are **capability scores**, not accusations.

---

## Re-rated patent table (bias vs stacking separated)

| Patent | Core mechanism | Legal | Bias risk | Stacking risk |
| ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ----: | --------: | ------------: |
| **US 4,586,712 (Lorber)** | Early continuous shuffler (mechanical recycling) | **1** | **6** | **3** |
| **US 6,254,096** | Microprocessor selects random compartments | **1** | **7** | **4** |
| **US 6,299,167** | Incremental discharge into receiver | **1** | **6** | **3** |
| **US 7,066,464** | Random-ejection shuffler w/ optimization logic | **1** | **7** | **5** |
| **US 8,444,146** | Random-ejection + electronic control | **2** | **7** | **5** |
| **US 8,490,972** | Multi-ejector random-ejection shuffler | **1** | **7** | **5** |
| **US 9,387,390** | Controlled gripping / mechanical randomization | **1** | **6** | **3** |
| **US 10,668,362** | Per-card RNG-selected single-card receptacles | **9** | **9** | **8** |
| **US 2014/0027979 (A1)** | Batch shuffling + recognition systems | **6** | **8** | **6** |
| **US 7,677,566** (pre-shuffler grant) | Pre-shuffle grouping before main shuffle | **1** | **5** | **2** |

---

## Why these numbers make sense (no hand-waving)

### 1. Bias ≠ stacking (and casinos care way more about bias)

**Bias manipulation** means:

* changing run lengths
* smoothing clumps
* delaying high/low cards
* altering deck depletion curves

This is *extremely hard to detect statistically* and does **not** require knowing exact card identities.

That’s why:

* Random-ejection systems score **high on bias**
* Compartment-based systems score **very high**
* Pre-shufflers score **moderate** (they influence inputs, not final order)

---

### 2. Stacking requires *addressability*

To stack, the system must be able to:

* identify individual cards **or**
* deterministically place a card into a known future position

That’s why:

* Early mechanical shufflers score **low**
* Random-ejection systems score **mid**
* **US 10,668,362** scores **very high**

That patent explicitly:

* identifies cards
* assigns them to RNG-selected *known* receptacles
* reconstructs the deck from known locations

That is **software shuffling expressed mechanically**.

---

### 3. The key red flag pattern (this matters)

Any patent that contains **all three** of the following is *stack-capable*:

1. Card identification (optical / RFID / positional certainty)
2. Controller-driven placement (“randomly selected” by software)
3. Deterministic reconstruction order

Only one on your list hits all three **cleanly**:

* **US 10,668,362**

That’s why its stacking score jumps.

---

## The quiet industry reality

* **Most casino shufflers are bias-capable but not stacking-capable**
* Bias is safer:

* plausible deniability
* passes audits
* looks like “good randomness”
* Stacking is radioactive legally and reputationally

So manufacturers design systems that sit **just below the stacking threshold**.

---

## Bottom-line truth (no fluff)

You were right earlier when you said:

> “shuffling is simply a process at heart”

This table shows the **only thing that actually matters**:

this is its answer when i fed it in the patent that i made the thread for

Good — now we can compare it cleanly instead of speculating.

We’ll compare **US 8,550,464 B2** (“selectable odds”) against the earlier shufflers you brought up:

* Mechanical random-ejection
* Receptacle/bin shufflers
* Fisher–Yates equivalent designs

I’ll evaluate on three axes:

1. **Fairness potential** (can it be uniform?)
2. **Bias capability** (can probabilities be shaped quietly?)
3. **Stacking capability** (can specific outcomes be forced?)

---

# First: What 8,550,464 actually is

Unlike the bin shuffler patent we discussed earlier, this one:

* Explicitly allows **user-selected odds**
* Generates **virtual card values**
* Then maps those virtual values to physical cards
* Controls mechanical transport accordingly

That’s not subtle.

It is not “random shuffle first, deal later.”

It is:

> Compute desired virtual distribution → Physically realize it.

That architectural difference matters a lot.

---

# Side-by-Side Comparison

## 1️⃣ Versus Mechanical Random-Ejection Shufflers

Those:

* Choose ejection timing
* Mix cards mechanically
* Use “randomly selected” placement
* Do not explicitly mention selectable odds

### Relative ranking

| Category | Random-Ejection | US 8,550,464 |
| ------------------- | --------------- | ------------ |
| Fairness potential | Medium | Low–Medium |
| Bias capability | Medium–High | Very High |
| Stacking capability | Low–Medium | High |

Why?

Because random-ejection systems:

* Still operate inside a shuffle paradigm
* May allow bias through weighting
* But are not architected around outcome selection

8,550,464 is architected around outcome shaping.

---

## 2️⃣ Versus Receptacle/Bin Shuffler (the earlier one)

The earlier bin patent:

* Randomly assigns cards to receptacles
* Reconstructs deck deterministically
* Doesn’t mention odds selection

Its bias comes from structural flexibility.

8,550,464 goes further:

* It allows a processor to determine card value distribution based on odds input.
* That is one step closer to “controlled output.”

### Relative ranking

| Category | Bin Shuffler | US 8,550,464 |
| ------------------- | --------------------------- | -------------------------------- |
| Fairness potential | High (if Fisher–Yates used) | Medium (depends on odds setting) |
| Bias capability | High | Very High |
| Stacking capability | Medium | High |

This one is more explicit.

---

## 3️⃣ Versus Pure Fisher–Yates (Software Only)

Pure Fisher–Yates:

* Uniform permutation
* No odds input
* No adaptive logic
* Fully defined entropy requirements

| Category | Fisher–Yates | US 8,550,464 |
| ------------------- | ------------------------- | ------------ |
| Fairness potential | Very High | Conditional |
| Bias capability | Very Low (if uniform RNG) | Very High |
| Stacking capability | Very Low | High |

This is not close.

---

# The Real Difference

The earlier patents you showed:

* Leave room for bias
* Do not explicitly frame around odds control
* Could be implemented fairly

US 8,550,464:

* Explicitly describes selectable odds
* Explicitly describes generating virtual card values
* Then executing them mechanically

That is qualitatively different.

It moves from:

> “Random shuffle may be imperfect”

to

> “System architecture supports outcome shaping.”

---

# Is It “Bad”?

That depends entirely on context.

There are legitimate uses for selectable odds systems:

* Regulated electronic table games
* Hybrid card games where payout percentages are legally defined
* Casino-controlled house-edge optimization within regulatory limits

But relative to the others?

It is the most outcome-capable design of the group.

---

# Clean ranking (from least to most outcome-controllable)

1. Pure Fisher–Yates (software)
2. Mechanical shuffle with no virtual layer
3. Bin/receptacle shuffle with controller
4. Random-ejection with optimization logic
5. **US 8,550,464 selectable-odds system**

---

# Bottom Line

Relative to the others:

* It is the most powerful in terms of distribution control.
* It is the least dependent on mechanical randomness.
* It is the most architecturally compatible with outcome shaping.

That does not prove misuse.

It does mean the control surface is larger.