Thread Rating:

Diogenes
Diogenes
Joined: Aug 29, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 7
August 29th, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM permalink
Recently (this year) results have caused me to rethink my "Casinos can't be cheating." attitude and I invite readers of this thread to consider the following:

Patent US6299167 ­ Playing card shuffling machine ­ Google Patents

"Another problem area suffered by both manual and automated shuffling techniques is associated with having concentrated sequences of cards. These concentrations or “slugs” most often occur with respect to cards having a value of 10, such as in playing blackjack. A skilled card counting gambler can take advantage of such card slugs to turn the odds against the casino and in favor of the card counter. Such slugs also indicate the failure of prior art shufflers to in fact effectively rearrange the order of cards in a deck or decks being shuffled. Thus there remains a strong need for improved shuffling machines which can effectively reorder a deck or series of decks."

The upshot of this is that it is now possible to "arrange" a shoe of cards in non-random order. My guess is that the shoe is arranged in an order that reduces variability.

If this is true, you should see very few winning runs by players and many bust hands of 12 - 16.

Cutting doesn't make any difference because cutting doesn't change the card sequence in any significant way. Number of players doesn't matter either.

It seems to me that this year there has been much less variability in blackjack and (in my case; an unusual number of losing sessions)

Full reference: Search Google patents US6299167
Diogenes
Diogenes
Joined: Aug 29, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 7
August 29th, 2016 at 11:30:27 AM permalink
Recently (this year) results have caused me to rethink my "Casinos can't be cheating." attitude and I invite readers of this thread to consider the following:

Patent US6299167 ­ Playing card shuffling machine ­ Google Patents

"Another problem area suffered by both manual and automated shuffling techniques is associated with having concentrated sequences of cards. These concentrations or “slugs” most often occur with respect to cards having a value of 10, such as in playing blackjack. A skilled card counting gambler can take advantage of such card slugs to turn the odds against the casino and in favor of the card counter. Such slugs also indicate the failure of prior art shufflers to in fact effectively rearrange the order of cards in a deck or decks being shuffled. Thus there remains a strong need for improved shuffling machines which can effectively reorder a deck or series of decks."

The upshot of this is that it is now possible to "arrange" a shoe of cards in non-random order. My guess is that the shoe is arranged in an order that reduces variability.

If this is true, you should see very few winning runs by players and many bust hands of 12 - 16.

Cutting doesn't make any difference because cutting doesn't change the card sequence in any significant way. Number of players doesn't matter either.

It seems to me that this year there has been much less variability in blackjack and (in my case; an unusual number of losing sessions)

Full reference: Search Google patents US6299167
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 29th, 2016 at 12:32:48 PM permalink
Quote: Diogenes

"Another problem area suffered by both manual and automated shuffling techniques is associated with having concentrated sequences of cards. These concentrations or “slugs” most often occur with respect to cards having a value of 10, such as in playing blackjack. A skilled card counting gambler can take advantage of such card slugs to turn the odds against the casino and in favor of the card counter. Such slugs also indicate the failure of prior art shufflers to in fact effectively rearrange the order of cards in a deck or decks being shuffled. Thus there remains a strong need for improved shuffling machines which can effectively reorder a deck or series of decks."

The upshot of this is that it is now possible to "arrange" a shoe of cards in non-random order. My guess is that the shoe is arranged in an order that reduces variability.


I think you're misreading the spec. Due to the way blackjack is dealt and played, a randomly shuffled deck tends to be picked up and discarded in a manner that leads to slugs of high value cards rather than an equal distribution. The problem they're identifying is that the poor shuffling machines in the prior art don't fix that, and the patent is directed toward a device that does. Here's claim 1:
Quote: Claim 1, US 6,299,167

1. A method for automating shuffling of playing cards, comprising the steps of:
a) forming an unshuffled stack of playing cards which are to be shuffled, said playing cards being in stacked array formation with contact between adjacent cards of the unshuffled array;
b) holding the unshuffled stack in an unshuffled stack holder on a floor having a fixed height; and
d) using an ejector mounted on an ejector carriage which is movable relative to a frame to eject at least one playing card at an incremental position of the unshuffled stack directly to a shuffled card receiver to provide a randomly distributed array of shuffled cards.

That claim, and other sections of the specification, specifically talk about ejecting a card "to provide a randomly distributed array of shuffled cards." That's the reason this type of device is called a random-ejection shuffler. Here's Fig 5 from the patent -- reference numerals 102 are the ejectors that push cards from the unshuffled deck (on the right) onto the shuffled pile (on the left).


By the way, where's step c in claim 1?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 724
August 29th, 2016 at 1:20:37 PM permalink
Quote: Diogenes

Recently (this year) results have caused me to rethink my "Casinos can't be cheating." attitude and I invite readers of this thread to consider the following:

Patent US6299167 ­ Playing card shuffling machine ­ Google Patents

"Another problem area suffered by both manual and automated shuffling techniques is associated with having concentrated sequences of cards. These concentrations or “slugs” most often occur with respect to cards having a value of 10, such as in playing blackjack. A skilled card counting gambler can take advantage of such card slugs to turn the odds against the casino and in favor of the card counter. Such slugs also indicate the failure of prior art shufflers to in fact effectively rearrange the order of cards in a deck or decks being shuffled. Thus there remains a strong need for improved shuffling machines which can effectively reorder a deck or series of decks."

The upshot of this is that it is now possible to "arrange" a shoe of cards in non-random order. My guess is that the shoe is arranged in an order that reduces variability.

If this is true, you should see very few winning runs by players and many bust hands of 12 - 16.

Cutting doesn't make any difference because cutting doesn't change the card sequence in any significant way. Number of players doesn't matter either.

It seems to me that this year there has been much less variability in blackjack and (in my case; an unusual number of losing sessions)

Full reference: Search Google patents US6299167



Perhaps one can invent a machine or process to arrange the cards to eliminate cluster ONLY in the 10 valued cards, but such card distribution would no longer considered truly random, and the integrity of such process would then be questioned.

Cluster of cards exist, whether the shuffling process is manual or automated. Cluster is part of the random nature in shuffling and is unavoidable. The probability of having set of four-10 cards (10,J,K,Q) cluster together is the same of the probability having any given set four non-10 cards cluster together.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
August 29th, 2016 at 1:33:40 PM permalink
Quote: 777

Cluster of cards exist, whether the shuffling process is manual or automated. Cluster is part of the random nature in shuffling and is unavoidable. The probability of having set of four-10 cards (10,J,K,Q) cluster together is the same of the probability having any given set four non-10 cards cluster together.

That's true, assuming a fair shuffle, but that's not the issue. The issue is that after a shoe of blackjack is played, the discards in the discard rack are not equally distributed due to the way players hit and stand and due to the way the dealer picks up the cards to discard them. In other words, the probability of having a set of four-10 cards is not the same as having any given set of four non-10 cards in the discard rack, even if it was true for the freshly-shuffled shoe. That's what the patented shuffler is trying to fix.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 724
August 29th, 2016 at 2:35:43 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

That's true, assuming a fair shuffle, but that's not the issue. The issue is that after a shoe of blackjack is played, the discards in the discard rack are not equally distributed due to the way players hit and stand and due to the way the dealer picks up the cards to discard them. In other words, the probability of having a set of four-10 cards is not the same as having any given set of four non-10 cards in the discard rack, even if it was true for the freshly-shuffled shoe. That's what the patented shuffler is trying to fix.



The players and the houses can get unlucky/unlucky or live & die due the random occurrence in clustering of cards.

I’m not sure I understand the significant of unequal distribution of the dealt cards in the discard rack. After all, I consider the way the players hit & stand and the way dealer picks up the dealt cards as part of the random process, and IMO, it is not necessary to artificially/mechanically alter the naturally occurring random process created by the dealer and the players. Why does this naturally occurring process have to be altered?

I’ve seen dealer at various casinos manually performed “light” or quick "shuffle" before putting the cards into a shuffle machine. Would this additional “light” card rearrangement step solve the issue of unequal distributed dealt cards in the discard rack?
SAMIAM
SAMIAM
Joined: Aug 4, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 43
August 29th, 2016 at 3:25:56 PM permalink
I still can not figure out how the shufflers know how many people are playing, if the idiot at 3rd base will or will not take the dealers break card. And yet posters here somehow believe the dealers benefits ? Worse yet, seems the posters have time to recount how they were cheaters, how often they and the whole table lost, chances of getting a two card twenty are dismal, etc.
And yet not a one of them ever has time to actually record their hands.
I mean if you are not keeping count, how will you know if you lost 31 hands in a row ?
777
777
Joined: Oct 7, 2015
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 724
August 29th, 2016 at 3:57:12 PM permalink
Quote: SAMIAM

I still can not figure out how the shufflers know how many people are playing, if the idiot at 3rd base will or will not take the dealers break card. And yet posters here somehow believe the dealers benefits ? Worse yet, seems the posters have time to recount how they were cheaters, how often they and the whole table lost, chances of getting a two card twenty are dismal, etc.
And yet not a one of them ever has time to actually record their hands.
I mean if you are not keeping count, how will you know if you lost 31 hands in a row ?



Even though it was not my fault I often felt bad whenever I took a card for whatever reason (for example taking a hit on 12 vs. dealer 2 up card) that unfortunately resulted in a negative outcome to everyone at the table or to certain players. And on subsequent play, if the everyone won or a player had blackjack, I often reminded the player(s) that my action earlier that resulted in negative outcome was the reason for the positive outcome in the current hand ...
SAMIAM
SAMIAM
Joined: Aug 4, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 43
August 29th, 2016 at 5:21:00 PM permalink
Good for you, but often giving such advice is like teaching a pig to sing. Wastes your time and annoys the pig,
Diogenes
Diogenes
Joined: Aug 29, 2016
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 7
August 30th, 2016 at 4:22:56 AM permalink
I think I failed to make the consequences of this ability to reorder the cards in the shuffler clear in the interest of being brief. It is possible to control the count of the shoe and to keep it near zero throughout the shoe. Consider an experiment:

Separate a deck of cards into high, low and neutral. Then begin to rearrange the deck in the sequence high, low, neutral, high, low,... . As the cards are dealt the count will be 1, -1, 0, 1, -1, 0, ... . And that will be true regardless of cut or player skill.

(a paragraph from "lacasinoman" page 8 of this thread describes one result of being able to generate a high proportion of stiff hands)

"Now secondly, what most people never seem to add into the mix is that the dealer always goes last, thus giving the edge to the house. Even if the dealer busts, as long as the player busted also, the dealer wins. So the fact is, the dealer is the only player on the table that can bust and still win because he immediately took all the players money that busted before him. So to create a shoe where everyone will likely get stiff hands including the dealer is a huge plus for the house. So the fact is, the cards don't have to be stacked in the dealers favor for the shoe to be bad for the players. The house doesn't care how many times a dealer gets a bad hand, as long as the players get them also. You will never know that hole card until all players have made thier play, and if you busted, it doesn't matter if the dealer busted, you still lose. "

Of course my example is the extreme case of reducing count variability and would be too obvious in practice but if you have a machine with the ability to reorder cards in the shuffler it will not be difficult to obtain a set of different sequences of cards that will increase the house edge by holding the count nearer to zero than a random shuffle would.

My point is that there exist patents for shuffle machines with the ability to reorder the cards to a pre-selected order and that such an order is non-random because the random "slugs" of high and low value cards are eliminated and that such a machine increases the house edge.

  • Jump to: