Update on Ult X + casino blanking out leftover multipliers?

Some time ago there was a thread started by someone who witnessed an employee in the high limit area blanking out abandoned 'Ultimate X' multipliers.

I cant find that thread.
Any update?

They blanked out the soda machines for COVID.

I just bumped the casino stealing value thread.

Quote: SOOPOO

I just bumped the casino stealing value thread.

thx soopoo!

I think this should be illegal - it changes the return of the game and could bring it below the minimum legally allowed return. For example, say I have $25 and I do a $25 spin and get a bunch of multipliers, because of this I decide to go to the ATM to pull out more cash but when I come back the multipliers are gone.

Now I just played a game with like 50% return - which I don't think is legal in any state?

FWIW I saw blackjack reshuffling mentioned in the other thread you mentioned in the OP. That should also be illegal ... they are exposing you to a lower or negative count more often than a positive count when they reshuffle mid deck or mid shoe ... so instead of a 1% house edge or w/e it ends up being a higher house edge since they don't give you a chance to realize your true expectation.

If the House can Wong out after 5 dealer busts in a row, I should rethink about Wonging out on 5 player busts in a row.

Quote: ga239577

FWIW I saw blackjack reshuffling mentioned in the other thread you mentioned in the OP. That should also be illegal ... they are exposing you to a lower or negative count more often than a positive count when they reshuffle mid deck or mid shoe ... so instead of a 1% house edge or w/e it ends up being a higher house edge since they don't give you a chance to realize your true expectation.

I think it is just the opposite of that. Shuffling more often lowers the house edge. Continuous Shuffling machines are better for the basic strategy player.

My mistake. I was speaking out of ignorance about how blackjack shuffling works :) . Didn't realize it's continuously shuffling cards back in as they are played, I was thinking it was a manual shuffle (i.e. a hand is discarded after being played, and that the house could choose to reshuffle the discards back in at any point they wish)

Quote: ga239577

I think this should be illegal - it changes the return of the game and could bring it below the minimum legally allowed return. For example, say I have $25 and I do a $25 spin and get a bunch of multipliers, because of this I decide to go to the ATM to pull out more cash but when I come back the multipliers are gone.

Now I just played a game with like 50% return - which I don't think is legal in any state?

I agree with you in principle, but there are a few factors where I disagree with your specific point:

1.) I seriously doubt that it would (assuming optimal strategy) bring the machine below the minimum legally allowed return. For that to happen, virtually everyone would have to play only one hand at max bet (or continue to play but stop anytime they generate a multiplier) and the casino would have to be killing a VERY high percentage of potential multipliers.

2.) For video poker, return computations are based on the assumption that the player will play optimal strategy. An extension of this for Ultimate X would be that optimal strategy includes never failing to, "Play off," your own multipliers.

Players deliberately playing in a fashion opposed to optimal strategy could very easily effectuate a video poker game to return less than 75%. It would be even easier than that with Video Blackjack, just deliberately keep hitting until you bust or have a total of 21 (for the machines designed to automatically stop the player from further hitting at 21----which I believe not even all of them are.)

Quote: ChumpChange

They blanked out the soda machines for COVID.

The single greatest loss to the world because of Covid.

Quote: DRich

I think it is just the opposite of that. Shuffling more often lowers the house edge. Continuous Shuffling machines are better for the basic strategy player.

Incorrect as to preferential shuffling. If the casino shuffles when the count goes positive more quickly but let’s negative shoes run their course, the player is worse off.

Quote: unJon

Incorrect as to preferential shuffling. If the casino shuffles when the count goes positive more quickly but let’s negative shoes run their course, the player is worse off.

I agree and continuous shufflers are better for the majority of players.

Quote: DRich

I agree and continuous shufflers are better for the majority of players.

Only if you assume the same number of hands per hour. I’d think the time between shoes would offset the couple hundredths of a percent of house edge. Also if we’re shuffling more often without continuous shuffler machine then you’ve got the cut card effect.