Shufflemaster
what is LIR?Quote: lml130I was recently at a Caesars property playing LIR. Up until that point, for 20+ years, I completely believed in the randomness of the deal. However, when I witnessed the ShuffleMaster spit out a sorted and suited deck upon a deck change, I began to question everything.
If it can do that for a deck change, then it can do whatever it wants and if it is linked to the casino's players card system or even the face identification system of the casino, our hands can be forced one way or another.
Does anyone know better?
link to original post
and yes, all shufflers can read cards and sort.
ie: poker shufflers
on a cruise ship, dealer got a straight flush 2 hands in a row in Ultimate Texas Holdem.
thats why i now randomly sit out a hand every 15 min or so to throw the shuffler off.
https://www.sggaming.com/Games/Shuffle-Master/Shufflers-and-Utilities/Single-Deck-Shufflers/DeckMate-2-7816
This machine
https://www.sggaming.com/Games/shuffle-master/shufflers-and-utilities/multi-deck-shufflers/mdx-18235
has "advanced shuffling technology [which] also eliminates edge sorting by randomly rotating the feeder elevator 180 degrees throughout the shuffle, to remove the chance of sorting the card edges in a predetermined way."
But none of them is able to sort cards in any particular way to make the player lose (or win), notwithstanding anecdotal claims (not referring to this thread) from low trustworthy online characters. If such a machine existed the casino industry would be risking its entire existence just to try to win more than they already do.
There are some very high rollers who insist on hand shuffles as they distrust the machines, but I don't think they win any more than high rollers who accept the shufflemasters as legitimate.
So those arguing against this are really arguing that it isn't being done, not that it can't be done. I have no idea where that faith is coming from based on this industry and its history.
Nevada Gaming is completely ill equipped to handle anything involving this or any other technology. They have neither the manpower, budget nor expertise. They can barely handle a complaint of underage gambling. And other jurisdictions even less equipped than Nevada. Any player spotting a problem or thinking there is a problem is on their own.
Quote: MDawgBut none of them is able to sort cards in any particular way to make the player lose (or win)
Are the shuffled cards removed from the shuffle machine, and then placed into and dealt from a shoe?
1. At some casinos the cards are preshuffled at a shuffling factory, unzipped from the cardboard box, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
2. At some casinos the preshuffled from the factory cards are placed into a shufflemaster type machine for further shuffling, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
3. At some casinos the preshuffled from the factory cards are given one additional manual shuffle by the dealer, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
4. At no casino I play at is this done (all casinos I play at as far as I have observed receive preshuffled cards from either the factory or shuffled by hand by the dealers in a room and zip tie locked into a crystal box), but I assume there must be some casinos like this out there, where:
the cards are not preshuffled at a factory (or by dealers not on the floor), and are simply placed in the shufflemaster machine for all shuffling, then either shuffled one more time manually or not, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
In all cases the player is allowed to cut the cards, and there is a burn of card(s), before play commences at the table.
Quote: MDawgThis is the way it works at different casinos:
1. At some casinos the cards are preshuffled at a shuffling factory, unzipped from the cardboard box, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
2. At some casinos the preshuffled from the factory cards are placed into a shufflemaster type machine for further shuffling, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
3. At some casinos the preshuffled from the factory cards are given one additional manual shuffle by the dealer, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
4. At no casino I play at is this done (all casinos I play at as far as I have observed receive preshuffled cards from either the factory or shuffled by hand by the dealers in a room and zip tie locked into a crystal box), but I assume there must be some casinos like this out there, where:
the cards are not preshuffled at a factory (or by dealers not on the floor), and are simply placed in the shufflemaster machine for all shuffling, then either shuffled one more time manually or not, given to the player to cut, and then placed directly into the shoe to be dealt.
In all cases the player is allowed to cut the cards, and there is a burn of card(s), before play commences at the table.
link to original post
look at all this time and effort into trying to convince OP or anyone who reads this thread that what OP said has nothing to do with trust
OP is clearly smarter than you and even i can obviously deduce that.
first it needs to find the card and it does that by identifying the specific card.
Second it needs to place that card into an intermediate location in the ORDER that was picked by the manufacturer.
repeat
im sure its not as simple but the functionality to do those things are within the shuffler. basic functionality that is needed when cheating. whats the difference? trust.
This is clearly all of the effort that should be put into an answer. YES they can put the cards into ANY order they want. But they claim to do that "randomly".
Quote: MDawgThis is the way it works at different casinos:
Thank you for your prompt response.
The sequence of the shuffled cards cannot change once placed into the shoe.
What "order that may be desired" could cause the casino to win more than expectation?
Quote: kewljVarious Shufflemaster machines have been able to shuffle back into sequential order for a decade now. That means the technology is there to shuffle into any order that may be desired
My understanding is, that in some of the table games mentioned earlier in the thread, the dealer removes packs of cards from the shuffler and distributes them to the players.
Is the deck continually shuffled while the packs are spit out, or does the shuffling stop when the first card(s) are removed?
As well, heatmap feels the need to say "so and so must be smarter than you" etc. That sort of nonsense comes from...where? I believe you posted recently about posts you make when you are inebriated? If so, no offense taken. 😂
This isn't the first time I've gotten into it with people who quote something off the internet or spout theory versus real world experience. Not worth the time to present further on the issue. Get to the casinos. They didn't just LET me win pushing eighty large on my most recent session, I won it straight up. Nor did they push the button to change things up when I started clocking them and they were bleeding profusely. Casinos routinely lose multi millions to players in sessions, it's all in a day's work.
Quote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgThis is the way it works at different casinos:
Thank you for your prompt response.
The sequence of the shuffled cards cannot change once placed into the shoe.
What "order that may be desired" could cause the casino to win more than expectation?
link to original post
Well, speaking again only in THEORY - something like this:
but even there, note that Lonnegan doesn't let anyone cut the cards before dealing, once he's introduced the cooler.
Quote: MDawgQuote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgThis is the way it works at different casinos:
Thank you for your prompt response.
The sequence of the shuffled cards cannot change once placed into the shoe.
What "order that may be desired" could cause the casino to win more than expectation?
link to original post
Well, speaking again only in THEORY - something like this:
but even there, note that Lonnegan doesn't let anyone cut the cards before dealing, once he's introduced the cooler.
link to original post
Actually Lonnegan cuts the deck and then switches in the cold deck after. He’s to the right of the dealer so the person that would cut.
There’s a one handed cut that a dealer would use to cancel a cut if the dealer has already swapped in a cold deck.
Don’t ever play in a home game with someone holding the cards in a mechanics grip, boys and girls!
I love The Sting, but it really irks me how they string bet in that scene.
Quote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgBut none of them is able to sort cards in any particular way to make the player lose (or win)
Are the shuffled cards removed from the shuffle machine, and then placed into and dealt from a shoe?
link to original post
On LIR, I typically see an iDeal type shuffler.
A discarded deck is loaded into the machine's input tray.
The shuffled deck currently inside the mechanism is dispensed out in packets; each packet is sized to be dealt as a player's hand.
If there are community cards or a differently sized dealer hand, a different button on the machine is pressed to dispense an appropriate packet.
Once the machine senses that the last packet has been taken out by the dealer, it begins ejecting the stub of the deck.
Once the stub is ejected, the discards from the prior round are automatically loaded into the mechanism, and shuffling commences while the players act on their hands and wagers are settled.
Quote: unJonQuote: MDawg
but even there, note that Lonnegan doesn't let anyone cut the cards before dealing, once he's introduced the cooler.
link to original post
Actually Lonnegan cuts the deck and then switches in the cold deck after. He’s to the right of the dealer so the person that would cut.
There’s a one handed cut that a dealer would use to cancel a cut if the dealer has already swapped in a cold deck.
Don’t ever play in a home game with someone holding the cards in a mechanics grip, boys and girls!
I love The Sting, but it really irks me how they string bet in that scene.
link to original post
Yes lots of technically string betting but they do declare in advance exactly what they are doing, as in "I'll call and raise" etc.
What I meant, which I believe you are saying the same thing, is that once the cooler is introduced Lonnegan doesn't allow anyone to cut it. In other words, he pretends to cut, and does cut the deck, but not the one that is put into play. By not allowing anyone to cut the cards before dealing, I mean that he doesn't cut the cooler himself, either.
Actually, if a cooler is done right, it is possible to shuffle it and still let it go into play, but you have to be careful to shuffle only the lower portion of the deck that is to be dealt. I mean you may sit there shuffling ten times and still leave intact the portion of the half deck that needs to be dealt to effect the cooler scam, if you know what you are doing. But again, if anyone cuts it after this incomplete shuffle, the cooler is busted.
But such a shuffler device is possible to build and program by vendors other than Shufflemaster, so if you play in a casino in countries such as Russia (brilliant people and corrupt institutions) nobody in this forum can make guarantees about whether any given shuffler device in that country is fair or crooked. Be cautious.
Quote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgThis is the way it works at different casinos:
Thank you for your prompt response.
The sequence of the shuffled cards cannot change once placed into the shoe.
What "order that may be desired" could cause the casino to win more than expectation?
link to original post
Getting back to your question, the reason it worked for Lonnegan (at least until Gondorff replaced his 3s with Jacks), is because no one was able to cut the cooler before it was dealt.
Which is why there is effectively no way for the shuffle machine to set up a deck for the player to lose more than expected, or at all.
Let's say that the house knew that a Blackjack game was to be one on one and only one card burned. Let's say it set up the deck so that the person dealt the first card (the player) would lose every single hand in the shoe. Possible? Sure. But only if the "cooler" could be dealt out exactly as set, and not cut by the player. Once cut, all bets are off and anything could happen, maybe even...that the dealer ends up losing every hand.
Let's say that the house set up the deck so that an entire portion had only low cards and would remain player unfriendly because more and more low cards only would be coming (even though the count was rising). Sure, fine, bad for the player (in theory anyway). But what if the player then happened to cut the deck so that this entire section came last, and the section that came up first was blocks and blocks of faces/tens. Who would win then? Well if every card coming out were a ten I suppose it would be one push after another. These are extreme examples, but in any case, given the player cut, I think it would not be feasible to set up definitively the deck in a way to make the player lose hand after hand, or even more than expected, which is an additional reason why (besides the absurd illegality) it's wrong to theorize that the casino would ever do such a thing. I also think that given the player cut, if a section did start rolling by that was ridiculously lopsided (tons of small cards one after another, or blocks of tens, etc.) that it would just become obvious that something was wrong and the scheme would be outed just like that. I.E. lot of risk, versus only potential benefit to the House.
some of that and some of pushing chips in for a call and then declaring a raise.Quote: MDawg
Yes lots of technically string betting but they do declare in advance exactly what they are doing, as in "I'll call and raise" etc.
We are saying same thing. My point was that because Lonnegan was right of dealer, there no one else that would be cutting cards but him. It’s a good position from which to introduce a cold deck.Quote: MDawgWhat I meant, which I believe you are saying the same thing, is that once the cooler is introduced Lonnegan doesn't allow anyone to cut it. In other words, he pretends to cut, and does cut the deck, but not the one that is put into play. By not allowing anyone to cut the cards before dealing, I mean that he doesn't cut the cooler himself, either.
Quote: MDawgActually, if a cooler is done right, it is possible to shuffle it and still let it go into play, but you have to be careful to shuffle only the lower portion of the deck that is to be dealt. I mean you may sit there shuffling ten times and still leave intact the portion of the half deck that needs to be dealt to effect the cooler scam, if you know what you are doing. But again, if anyone cuts it after this incomplete shuffle, the cooler is busted.
link to original post
If you brought in a cold deck as dealer, you would probably do one of the following:
1) Introduce it after the shuffle and cut. This is what Lonnegan does from the cut man position.
2) Introduce it after the shuffle but before the cut. Then cancel the cut with a one-handed cut when taking deck back.
3) Introduce it pre shuffle and then execute a few false shuffles, and then cancel the cut.
Quote: MDawgLet's say that the house knew that a Blackjack game was to be one on one and only one card burned.
Wouldn't the house also need to know how many hands the player will play for each round, before the cards are shuffled?
The player would need to request a one-on-one game, not the house...correct?
Should a player request a private table, would the house establish how many hands he was permitted to play for each round, and insist that he agree, before the cards are shuffled, to play that same number of hands per round?
It's understood that they could insist, but I am asking if any casino would try something like that...before shuffling the cards?
Quote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgLet's say that the house knew that a Blackjack game was to be one on one and only one card burned.
Wouldn't the house also need to know how many hands the player will play for each round, before the cards are shuffled?
The player would need to request a one-on-one game, not the house...correct?
Should a player request a private table, would the house establish how many hands he was permitted to play for each round, and insist that he agree, before the cards are shuffled, to play that same number of hands per round?
It's understood that they could insist, but I am asking if any casino would try something like that...before shuffling the cards?
link to original post
Do the conspiracy theorists only think you can do this with a shuffler but not a CSM? A CSM would eliminate some of the issues you raise.
Quote: MDawgI don't like people like heatmap, kewlJ who come up with theory about "well this COULD happen." Get to the tables, play, and talk to me then.
MODERATORS: I object to this person invoking my name. Wizard in no uncertain terms told both of us not to address the other JUST yesterday.
I am hesitant but still willing to have a discussion about this topic, because I purchased and took possession of a shufflemaster machine used in blackjack play several years ago before passing it along (selling) to another AP, and I KNOW what it is capable of. And yes, it was a real machine, used in a real casino in another country.
The capability is there and that is all anyone need know.
And to coach belly, YES there are certain sequences that will allow the house to win more. These are easily figured out through a simulation program. For example, in blackjack two such sequences would be having aces clumped within a group of non 10 value cards. It need not even be all aces, just some. This would reduce the number of player blackjack which are paid at 3:2 and increase house advantage.
A second sequence would be clumps of 10 value cards. If such a clump were kept separate from aces, it favors the house. There would be lots of 20 vs 20 pushes but fewer blackjacks. Again anything resulting in fewer blackjacks increases the house edge significantly.
Now some of these things occur naturally in random shuffles, so every time you see a whole clump of 10 value come out it doesn't mean cheating, but the capability is there to create such a sequence. That isn't in question. Now you are just relying on the casino industry not to do so, because gaming is way overmatched in protecting against anything like this. I see no evidence they even attempt to regulate it. And it will only get worse with further technology advances.
it's different in ultimate texas holdem.Quote: MDawgYes, understood. All of those factors, additionally besides that the player is allowed the final cut, would contribute further to making it not feasible for the House to try to stack the deck.
link to original post
2 decks used. each deck is shuffled every time inbetween rounds. noone cuts the deck.
another computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
i think it's pretty easy to link the players card system to the shuffler to see exactly who has what cards.
thats why i randomly sit out every 15min or so to throw off the shuffler.
Quote: kewljAnd to coach belly, YES there are certain sequences that will allow the house to win more. These are easily figured out through a simulation program. For example, in blackjack two such sequences would be having aces clumped within a group of non 10 value cards. It need not even be all aces, just some. This would reduce the number of player blackjack which are paid at 3:2 and increase house advantage.
If such sequences are easily figured out, will you stipulate that they have been figured out, and are all known?
Do you know of any sequences that can be created to increase the house advantage, perhaps a sequence for a single deck that can be represented in a forum post?
I recall reading that an extreme negative count favors the player, which a clumped section of non-10s would represent when dealt out.
I'm wondering if clumping aces with non-10s will mitigate the lack of blackjacks by skewing the double-down opportunities, increasing the number of dealer stiffs, and actually favor the player.
Again, this should be known information, but I don't know it, so that's why I'm asking here.
Quote: 100xOdds
another computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
i think it's pretty easy to link the players card system to the shuffler to see exactly who has what cards.
I saw something like this mentioned yesterday. While certainly possible, it complicates things. Systems would have to be linked either using internet or hard wired. Again, certainly possible, but arranging cards in a predetermined sequence is something that can be done internally, without linking to anything else. Simple, simple, simple.
Quote: 100xOddsanother computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
How are fluctuations in the number of players per round accounted for?
Do they shuffle the cards only after the number of players has been established?
Quote: coachbellyQuote: 100xOddsanother computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
How are fluctuations in the number of players per round accounted for?
Do they shuffle the cards only after the number of players has been established?
link to original post
look this isnt shufflemaster doing this video but - what we are speaking about is fundamentally easy enough for a college student to do it for fun
think about how you would do it if you could manipulate the deck yourself. you cant see the algorithm in the shuffle machine and therefore its considered fair and random because you dont know the algorithm that creates the sequences in the deck.
Quote: coachbellyQuote: kewljAnd to coach belly, YES there are certain sequences that will allow the house to win more. These are easily figured out through a simulation program. For example, in blackjack two such sequences would be having aces clumped within a group of non 10 value cards. It need not even be all aces, just some. This would reduce the number of player blackjack which are paid at 3:2 and increase house advantage.
If such sequences are easily figured out, will you stipulate that they have been figured out, and are all known?
Do you know of any sequences that can be created to increase the house advantage, perhaps a sequence for a single deck that can be represented in a forum post?
I recall reading that an extreme negative count favors the player, which a clumped section of non-10s would represent when dealt out.
I'm wondering if clumping aces with non-10s will mitigate the lack of blackjacks by skewing the double-down opportunities, increasing the number of dealer stiffs, and actually favor the player.
Again, this should be known information, but I don't know it, so that's why I'm asking here.
I don't know the answer either. It isn't something I have really looked into.
As for your statement about an extreme negative count being slightly advantageous to player, seems I read something like that, but I don't remember the detains. I am sure it would be very extreme and very slight advantage and would also include some strange strategy of hitting all stiffs vs dealer stiffs. Like you would hit your 16 vs dealer 6, knowing there were so many small cards remaining and hoping to draw a 20 or 21 vs the dealer drawing to a 18 or 19 as busts wouldn't come into play. I would think having to employ such a strategy would raise HUGE red flags.
Many times in blackjack it isn't whether this or that CAN happen or garner some very minutely slim advantage but whether that rare thing is worth it. Worth the effort. Worth the attention.
In any case for all of the reasons mentioned above, this sort of thing would never happen at a casino. Especially given the player cut, and variability of how many players and hands might come into play, the potential benefit is minuscule compared to the risk to the casino's standing if discovered to be cheating. At best, this is a discussion of theory, and even following the theory to its conclusion doesn't seem to indicate that it could ever be actuated successfully in a casino.
but the shuffler will need to know how many players are at the table to give the dealer the winning hand in UTH.Quote: kewljQuote: 100xOdds
another computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
i think it's pretty easy to link the players card system to the shuffler to see exactly who has what cards.
I saw something like this mentioned yesterday.
While certainly possible, it complicates things.
Systems would have to be linked either using internet or hard wired. Again, certainly possible, but arranging cards in a predetermined sequence is something that can be done internally, without linking to anything else. Simple, simple, simple.
link to original post
else a player may have the dealer's winning hand
the player tracking system knows how many players at the table.Quote: coachbellyQuote: 100xOddsanother computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
How are fluctuations in the number of players per round accounted for?
Do they shuffle the cards only after the number of players has been established?
link to original post
it sends this data to the shuffler so the dealer has the winning hand.
but if a new player joins or an existing player leaves, the shuffler is off by 1 for 2 rounds till that deck is shuffled again.
plus the casino needs to have the player win once in a while so they come back again.
sheer the sheep instead of butcher the sheep.
so the shuffler may be off for a few rounds
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8702100B2
Quote:Card-Receiving Compartments
A first preferred assembly or stack of card-receiving compartments 28 is depicted in FIGS. 9 and 10, and for purposes of this disclosure is also referred to as a rack assembly. Referring back to FIG. 3, the rack assembly 28 is housed in an elevator and rack assembly housing 78 generally adjacent to the well 60, but horizontally spaced therefrom. An elevator motor 80 is provided to position the rack assembly 28 vertically under control of a microprocessor, which microprocessor is generally part of the processing unit 32. The motor 80 is linked to the rack assembly 28 by a timing belt 82. Referring now to FIG. 10, the rack assembly 28 includes a bottom plate 92, a left hand rack 94 carrying a plurality of half shelves 96, a right hand rack 98 including a plurality of half shelves 100 and a top plate 102. Together the right and left hand racks 94, 98 and their respective half shelves 96, 100 form the individual plate-like shelf pieces or members 104 for forming the top and bottom walls of individual compartments 106.
Preferably, the rack assembly 28 has nine compartments 106. Seven of the nine compartments 106 are for forming complete player hands, one compartment 106 forms a complete dealer hand and the last compartment 106 is for accepting unused or discard cards. It should be understood that the device of the present invention is not limited to a rack assembly with seven to nine compartments 106. For example, although it is possible to achieve a random distribution of cards delivered to eight compartments with a 52-card deck or group of cards, if the number of cards per initial unshuffled group is greater than 52, more compartments than nine may be provided to achieve sufficient randomness in eight formed hands.
this is how they know the position of your seat
However, yes, we didn't consider the possibility of a continuous shuffle machine that would be delivering a cooler every single hand, but that takes the matter to a different level of where a machine would be stacking the deck every single deal....
Quote: MDawgI see nothing in the claims for this patented device that affects the discussion one way or another of a deck that is presented, cut and then locked into the shoe? If you think otherwise, please explain.
However, yes, we didn't consider the possibility of a continuous shuffle machine that would be delivering a cooler every single hand, but that takes the matter to a different level of where a machine would be stacking the deck every single deal....
link to original post
That is not the common manner in which Let It Ride is offered.
Shufflemaster / SG makes several automatic shuffling devices; discussion of the MD series batch shufflers are probably not relevant to this situation, nor are the one2six continuous shufflers.
The iDeal series shufflers dispense packets of shuffled cards, for immediate dealing as player hands.
So yes, you're right, but it's probably irrelevant to the current situation.
Quote: coachbelly
Do you know of any sequences that can be created to increase the house advantage, perhaps a sequence for a single deck that can be represented in a forum post?
link to original post
I did see a stacked single deck where the dealer would win most, if not all, hands.
I saw it in a forum post. I do not recall if I saw it here or elsewhere.
The sequence could be cut at any point.
Player decisions did not matter; splits were not possible, hits or doubles would bust, or not make a winning hand.
Standing where basic strategy suggested hitting, in order to change The Sacred Flow of the Cards would still result in the dealer winning, or at least not paying the player.
It was exceptionally clever.
Quote: DieterI did see a stacked single deck where the dealer would win most, if not all, hands.
Was it equally effective against any number of players' hands dealt, or a fluctuating number of players' hands for each round?
Quote: coachbellyQuote: DieterI did see a stacked single deck where the dealer would win most, if not all, hands.
Was it equally effective against any number of players' hands dealt, or a fluctuating number of players' hands for each round?
link to original post
No. That stack was set for one player hand against the dealer.
I believe it is within the purview of the casino to limit a player to one hand.
Quote: DieterI believe it is within the purview of the casino to limit a player to one hand.
What's the relevance of a casino's purview in your example?
Quote: Dieter
I believe it is within the purview of the casino to limit a player to one hand.
link to original post
In Blackjack?
Quote: MDawgIn Blackjack?
I wonder if a player exists that would request a private, single-deck Blackjack game in a casino,
and then agree to be restricted to one hand per round, dealt from machine-shuffled deck.
Quote: coachbellyQuote: MDawgIn Blackjack?
I wonder if a player exists that would request a private, single-deck Blackjack game in a casino,
and then agree to be restricted to one hand per round, dealt from machine-shuffled deck.
link to original post
... and you think a mechanic couldn't do at least as good of a job?
Anyway, this whole discussion is reminiscent of the old "beast mode" arguments.
It's a -EV casino game; it is not improbable that a player loses repeatedly. I find that to be the most probable explanation, and cheating by the casino to be somewhat less probable.
Honest? As honest as the day is long.
but you need something to tell the shuffler how many people are playing so the dealer gets the winning hand.Quote: kewljQuote: 100xOdds
another computer system tracking your player's card says how many players at the table.
i think it's pretty easy to link the players card system to the shuffler to see exactly who has what cards.
I saw something like this mentioned yesterday. While certainly possible, it complicates things. Systems would have to be linked either using internet or hard wired.
Again, certainly possible, but arranging cards in a predetermined sequence is something that can be done internally, without linking to anything else.
Simple, simple, simple.
link to original post
Although, years ago, I watched a player who was allowed to bet to $25K a hand at Blackjack (and this was when no casino had even $15K public tables), on the condition that flat bet. Sucker move to accept such a thing. In speaking with the top brass at that same casino today, they tell me that no one would ever be forced to flat bet at blackjack (banned perhaps, but not flat betted). (But as I recall, that $25K player was allowed to bet more than one hand at a time, so effectively, that allowed varying the bet.)
Has anyone told you lately what an asset you are to this forum?
Quote: DieterIt's a -EV casino game; it is not improbable that a player loses repeatedly. I find that to be the most probable explanation, and cheating by the casino to be somewhat less probable.
Honest? As honest as the day is long.
link to original post
This makes the most sense and that's what I believe until I see real evidence that will stand up in court.
There have been claims of seeing such rigged machines but show one. Just one.
There are so many casino employees but not one whistleblower who has come forward.
This is nothing more than Internet forum rumor.
And frankly when one of you will believe that I saw a random shooter roll 18 yos in a row then and only then will I even consider these machines are rigged to cheat players.
Quote: Dieter
Anyway, this whole discussion is reminiscent of the old "beast mode" arguments.
link to original post
To me this beast mode term was introduced to obfuscate the actual problem. This has to do with how the patent systems work. They have the abilities to produce certain products. They have the abilities to potentially stop people from producing products that are being sold that contain the patented technology. The only thing stopping them from doing specific things related to the patents are jurisdictional laws which specifically state that the functionalities of their technologies are illegal. If something is not defined as illegal it can’t be produced, otherwise if it’s not illegal or even if it is legally defined - they can produce it and its a literal win win in my opinion.
Quote: billryanDo you have these folks on speed dial? It seems whenever a question pops up, you can communicate with the appropriate muckety muck needed to authenticate your position, sometimes within minutes of the question popping up.
Has anyone told you lately what an asset you are to this forum?
link to original post
Huh? I didn't communicate with anyone. I didn't need to. Just relating personal actual experience.
What folks? When I said "in speaking with the actual top brass at the same casino today" I didn't mean today as is January 29, 2022, I meant today as in "these days." I had that convo about flat betting about a year ago, and actually posted about it here at WOV somewhere.
Quote: MDawgWhen I throw my money around at the casino it is to get BETTER rules (such as stand 17, and RSA on DD), not worse! Why would anyone playing a private table accept worse rules than at a public one?
Although, years ago, I watched a player who was allowed to bet to $25K a hand at Blackjack (and this was when no casino had even $15K public tables), on the condition that flat bet. Sucker move to accept such a thing. In speaking with the top brass at that same casino today, they tell me that no one would ever be forced to flat bet at blackjack (banned perhaps, but not flat betted). (But as I recall, that $25K player was allowed to bet more than one hand at a time, so effectively, that allowed varying the bet.)
link to original post
Quote: MDawgQuote: billryanDo you have these folks on speed dial? It seems whenever a question pops up, you can communicate with the appropriate muckety muck needed to authenticate your position, sometimes within minutes of the question popping up.
Has anyone told you lately what an asset you are to this forum?
link to original post
Huh? I didn't communicate with anyone. I didn't need to. Just relating personal actual experience.
What folks? When I said "in speaking with the actual top brass at the same casino today" I didn't mean today as is January 29, 2022, I meant today as in "these days." I had that convo about flat betting about a year ago, and actually posted about it here at WOV somewhere.Quote: MDawgWhen I throw my money around at the casino it is to get BETTER rules (such as stand 17, and RSA on DD), not worse! Why would anyone playing a private table accept worse rules than at a public one?
Although, years ago, I watched a player who was allowed to bet to $25K a hand at Blackjack (and this was when no casino had even $15K public tables), on the condition that flat bet. Sucker move to accept such a thing. In speaking with the top brass at that same casino today, they tell me that no one would ever be forced to flat bet at blackjack (banned perhaps, but not flat betted). (But as I recall, that $25K player was allowed to bet more than one hand at a time, so effectively, that allowed varying the bet.)
link to original post
link to original post
Et voila:
Quote: MDawg
In the very early 2000s, when blackjack limits for regular players were 5000 at most Vegas and Tahoe casinos, with some exceptions to 10000, and the table limit at Baccarat was 15000, I knew someone who wanted to play blackjack to 25000 a hand and this major Vegas strip casino let him - so long as he flat bet at 25000 every hand. He lost a lot. Recently, I asked my host at that same casino about this, and he said that "we don't flat bet anyone." I assume he meant that they will 86, but not impose flat betting, and this host is the top guy at that casino, in charge of not just all hosts but all player development, so he would know. The point being that flat betting is viewed as a handicap, and something with which players are penalized.
link to original post
