unshuffled baccarat order mapping

Has anyone tried to map out what the unshuffled deck in the Golden Nugget and Taj Mahal cases would look like?

Since each side gets every other card, it might not look so obvious. Even the same suits coming out get a bit mingled with each other and suits are not important in Baccarat.

The winning results are not exactly obvious either.

Here is my mapping. If anyone sees an error let me know.

burn = A = 1 card
"2" burned

player total banker total decision

3,5___ 8___ 4,6___ 0___ P
7,9___ 16__ 8,10__ 8___ B
J,K,2__ 2___ Q,A,3_ 4___ B
4,6,8__ 8___ 5,7,9_ 1___ P
10,Q,A_ 1___ J,K,2_ 2___ B
3,5___ 8___ 4,6___ 0___ P
7,9___ 16__ 8,10__ 8___ B
J,K,2__ 2___ Q,A,3_ 4___ B
4,6,8__ 8___ 5,7,9_ 1___ P
10,Q,A_ 1___ J,K,2_ 2___ B

The correct betting pattern starting from the second game on is
B,B,P,B,P, repeat

That winning pattern would not be immediately obvious if you were not writing down the past results(which dealers don't do.)

Thoughts.

EDIT: sorry, had to add the underscores to retain my original formatting

Are we assuming the deck is not cut at the start?

Bac players look for patterns and streaks. If the deck was unshuffled it would cause the same results to repeat over and over. Eventualy the Bac player would realize this pattern and play it over and over again. If they are smart and realize what is happening they would try to cut the deck close to the same place to hopefully minamilize the impact of the deck being cut.

The original case was for an 8 deck game that was pre-shuffled from the manufacturer and loaded into the tray. (Gemaco supplied the cards and admitted the decks were unshuffled and mis-labeled as shuffled.)

I assumed there was no cut of the decks in an 8 deck game of Mini-Baccarat.

However, if the decks were cut, the same pattern should emerge of B,B,P,B,P.

My point was everyone could not understand how the dealer did not notice the unshuffled order but when you look at the winning pattern, it is not the most obvious one to see. Add that the cards are given out alternating between Player and Banker and it becomes more difficult.

ex. If the dealer saw Player had 2,3 and then banker had 4,5 it might be glaring that the cards were unshuffled.

Instead what he saw was Player 2,4 and Banker 3,5.

Quote: darkoz

My point was everyone could not understand how the dealer did not notice the unshuffled order but when you look at the winning pattern, it is not the most obvious one to see. Add that the cards are given out alternating between Player and Banker and it becomes more difficult.

ex. If the dealer saw Player had 2,3 and then banker had 4,5 it might be glaring that the cards were unshuffled.

Instead what he saw was Player 2,4 and Banker 3,5.

But then surely it becomes more obvious after the next hand or two, going for example P6 B7, P8,B9.

Actually as an afterthought, seeing the suited cards come out of the shoe might be a clue. eg watching the cards become P2c B3c, P4c, B5c, then eg P6c B7c P8c B9c.

So in two hands you see 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 all clubs in 2 hands would be a noticable anomaly, but Bacc really isnt my game.

Quote: Croupier

but Bacc really isnt my game.

Nor should it be, unless things like this are happening.

Quote: AxelWolf

Nor should it be, unless things like this are happening.

I know enough to get me into trouble, which is why I avoid it :D

Speaking from ignorance here....

I think that I heard in the earlier discussions that the brand new, supposed-to-be-pre-shuffled-but-really-unshuffled decks are not in numerical order by suit. They are in a non-random order as they are cut from a sheet. I don't remember whether I ever saw the order they are in immediately after cutting the sheet.

From that arrangement, they were supposed to be shuffled (random) by the manufacturer, but they weren't. The players recognized (or had prior knowledge) that there were unshuffled decks. Whether they knew the as-cut, unshuffled order or just recognized the pattern, I don't really know. In any case, it wasn't something obvious like all of the spades being dealt in numerical order, followed by the next suit in numerical order. Even the half-asleep dealer and surveillance staff surely would have noticed that.

I agree you would think that seeing the same suit would tip off the dealer but I find people don't necessarily see the whole picture when presented with pieces.

the dealer would see the first hand is all clubs, then time wasted making payouts, sweeping cards off, next deal and if he wasn't thinking about it, boom, he doesn't notice.

in both cases, taj mahal and golden nugget, dealers, pit bosses, surveillance sat and watched and didn't put the "pieces" together

Quote: Doc

Speaking from ignorance here....

I think that I heard in the earlier discussions that the brand new, supposed-to-be-pre-shuffled-but-really-unshuffled decks are not in numerical order by suit. They are in a non-random order as they are cut from a sheet. I don't remember whether I ever saw the order they are in immediately after cutting the sheet.

From that arrangement, they were supposed to be shuffled (random) by the manufacturer, but they weren't. The players recognized (or had prior knowledge) that there were unshuffled decks. Whether they knew the as-cut, unshuffled order or just recognized the pattern, I don't really know. In any case, it wasn't something obvious like all of the spades being dealt in numerical order, followed by the next suit in numerical order. Even the half-asleep dealer and surveillance staff surely would have noticed that.

ah, that makes a lot of sense.

most likely a similar order of repeated pattern was noticed by players and they just followed the pattern. then the players may not have noticed the unshuffled order either.

I would be upset if I thought I had been supremely lucky and the casino refused to pay

you guys are assuming that the dealer would have cared. The dealer gets a shoe that is shuffled. If it is coming out possibly unshuffled they may not have cared. They may have been getting large tips which made them care even less.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: Doc

Speaking from ignorance here....

I think that I heard in the earlier discussions that the brand new, supposed-to-be-pre-shuffled-but-really-unshuffled decks are not in numerical order by suit. They are in a non-random order as they are cut from a sheet. I don't remember whether I ever saw the order they are in immediately after cutting the sheet.

From that arrangement, they were supposed to be shuffled (random) by the manufacturer, but they weren't. The players recognized (or had prior knowledge) that there were unshuffled decks. Whether they knew the as-cut, unshuffled order or just recognized the pattern, I don't really know. In any case, it wasn't something obvious like all of the spades being dealt in numerical order, followed by the next suit in numerical order. Even the half-asleep dealer and surveillance staff surely would have noticed that.

ah, that makes a lot of sense.

Ah, I had assumed that the cards were packed by rank and suit, and mislabled as shuffled when they were really set and ready to be chacked then shuffled when unpacked.

Turns out they are right about what they say about when you assume. :D

un cut sheet

Obviously a pattern. They would't be in suit order, but anyone with a brain can guess the next few cards.

Quote: Doc

I think that I heard in the earlier discussions that the brand new, supposed-to-be-pre-shuffled-but-really-unshuffled decks are not in numerical order by suit. They are in a non-random order as they are cut from a sheet. I don't remember whether I ever saw the order they are in immediately after cutting the sheet.

That was me that suggested that idea.

Mind you, I have no proof, but my theory is this:

When cards are printed, they are printed on a large sheet, in a matrix of, say, 9x6 for 54 cards (2 jokers), or 7x8 (2 jokers, plus 2 info cards) etc.

For a standard deck, after cutting, they are picked up one column at a time, which leaves them in perfect, new deck sequence.

For the "reshuffled" deck, they are picked up one row at a time (not including the jokers/extras), which leaves them in a seemingly random sequence. Then, 6 or 8 decks are put together and put into the shuffler, before shipping to the casino.

In the GN case, the 6 or 8 decks weren't shuffled, but appeared random because of the pickup procedure.

That's why dealers / pit / security / etc. didn't notice.

But give a guy a pencil and paper, and it's gonna be real obvious what's going on, once they get into the second deck.

Note that if this theory is right, it doesn't matter if or where the shoe was cut, or how many were initially burned. As soon as they play thru 52 cards, the same sequence appears, and the players will notice (or not too many hands later), and bet accordingly.

If the cards were not in order and were dealt like that uncut sheet that makes GN's defense cloudier. From my POV, baccarat allows you to count cards and patterns. Players found a pattern using items allowed and provided at a baccarat table from cards they were provided by the casino. It seems so open and shut. I hope the players continue the fight.

Quote: Pokeraddict

If the cards were not in order and were dealt like that uncut sheet that makes GN's defense cloudier. From my POV, baccarat allows you to count cards and patterns. Players found a pattern using items allowed and provided at a baccarat table from cards they were provided by the casino. It seems so open and shut. I hope the players continue the fight.

Yeah, I'm guessing this is one buried in the fine print. Just like, if a dealer overpays someone and nobody catches it, they can come back 10 hands later and ask for their money back, even tracking you down elsewhere, at least in some cases. To me as a player, once the hand is dead, the books are closed on it. But if, either in jurisdictional statute or in the casino's operating procedures, they've defined a dead/nullified hand/shoe/session and it includes a clause about cards not properly dealt/shuffled voids the hand, I'm guessing that makes it legal for them to do what they're doing. IANAL. lol....

Had a hard time understanding why it would take 41 hands for the pit to wise up. It would take me about 3, (1 is coincidence, 2 is fate; I'm max betting the 3rd hand) but I was assuming "unshuffled" = rank and suit order. The idea that the cards weren't packed that way after cut apart makes a lot of sense.

^^^ Right, as the tray emptied nobody thought it might be worth a closer look? This falls under protecting your games. IMO, it gives casinos a license to freeroll.

I have got to believe these cards are being cut by automated machinery. If that is the case, altering them to pick up a row, instead of a column, I would think would be a huge nightmare.

The players obviously knew, based on their going to max $5,000 bets. You don't do that on a hunch that you see a pattern. They KNEW they had found a pattern.

Still, I agree, the players should have prevailed. The casino offered the game, and the players played it. This is GN's fault. If they want to recoup from their vendor, they can do so, but they should be forced to pay the players. I'm thinking this is far from over.

Okay, I did this manually (I had some time to kill today) but here is what I came up with based on the "uncut sheets" theory.

I located two images of sheets from the internet so this theory holds water. The images of the sheets were 11 columns of 5 cards each.

The order of the sheets in columns was as follows.

A,3,6,9,Q
A,4,6,9,Q
A,4,7,9,Q
A,4,7,10,Q
2,4,7,10,K
2,5,7,10,K
2,5,8,10,K
2,5,8,J,K
3,5,8,J,Joker
3,6,8,J,Joker
3.6.9.J.blank

Playing out the decks got me these results. Please correct if you see an error, as I said it was manually done and it was a lot harder than when the deck was suit and numerically ascending.

Burn card = A = 1 card burned
"3" burned

Player total banker total outcome
6,Q___ 6__ 9,A,4_ 4___ P
6,Q___ 6__ 9,A,4_ 4___ P
7,Q___ 7__ 9,A,4_ 4___ P
7,Q___ 7__ 10,2,4_ 6___ P
7,K___ 7__ 10,2,5_ 7___ T
7,K___ 7__ 10,2,5_ 7___ T
8,K___ 8__ 10,2__ 2___ P
8,K___ 8__ J,3___ 3___ P
8,3,8__ 9__ J,6___ 6___ P
J,6___ 6__ 3,9,J__ 2___ P

This concludes the first deck and note that even though the "play" began with the third card, (the first was Ace which burned the second card), due to the rules of Baccarat, I still ended up cleanly with the last card of the deck being inclusive in the hand. That is, the second deck's first card is the first card of a new game and a new sequence.

That sequence is:


Player total banker total outcome
A,6___ 7___ 3,9,Q__ 2___ P
A,6___ 7___ 4,9,Q__ 3___ P
A,7___ 8___ 4,9___ 2___ P
Q,4___ 4___ A,7___ 8___ B
10,2,7_ 9___ Q,4,10_ 4___ P
K,5___ 5___ 2,7___ 9___ B
10,2,8_ 0___ K,5,10_ 5___ B
K,5,J__ 5___ 2,8,K__ 0___ P
3,8,3__ 4___ 5,J,6__ 1___ P
8,3,9__ 0___ J,6,J__ 6___ B

Note the sequence for the second deck, due to the rules of baccarat also ended on the last card of the deck at the completion of a game even though starting from the first card instead of the third card.

At this point all six remaining decks would have the same pattern as above which is P,P,P,B,P,B,B,P,P,B, repeat.

With the dealer not writing this sequence down, I fail to see how he could be held accountable and fired nor any of the staff the casinos let go. It would be hard tested for anyone to notice this pattern just by eye. Since this was a rare enough phenomenon, especially since pre-shuffled decks are a new thing in AC, I would imagine the staff was simply looking for the usual suspects(cheating, collusion, etc,) of which this was not one.

Or in other words "the butler didn't do it."

nice work darkoz!