article on csms

i thought it was interesting, im sure some (many) of you have already read it...

This is major BS from John May,he has never backed up any of these methods with any statistical proof,bankroll requirements or even common sense.

id say its as predictable as estimating where the roulette ball will land by watching the dealers throw

all i said was it is interesting, to me anyway, bs or not....

id still stay away from csms, theyre more trouble than theyre worth

i make enough $$ anyway

I would stay away from trying to find some method of exploiting the CSM. Bottom line, the decision to do away with CSMs will probably be influenced by the lack of players, advantage or otherwise. Let's face it, on an empty table, a CSM deals as many hands per hour as a hand shuffled game. Although it probably isn't a bad idea to sling some CSM advantage play propaganda towards the casino.

is finally going downhill - at least their stock is, and that is a good thing! Especially since I sold mine a while back,anyway. I hate the darn contraptions as much as any other BJ player, but my desire for making money overrides everything else, so when their stock was going up, I hopped on board. Hey let's make money off the the casinos anyway we can!

Keep an eye on it if you are interested in stocks, they seem to be a well-managed company, no matter how much I hate to admit it. But lately, they look pretty weak. Yeah! Maybe you better exercise any options you have, Mr. Shufflemaster Owner. They might be worth a lot less 1 year from now (or maybe not - who knows).

AB

This is major BS from John May,he has never backed up any of these methods with any statistical proof,bankroll requirements or even common sense.

None of these things is true, and the author is proceeding on an agenda. I have posted extensively with reference to statistics collated on these devices, the literature of the the manufacturers, and most importantly the patents on these devices (see the bjmath.com archives). Ask Sandman to produce any evidence at all concerning the substance of my method and he won't be able to produce it, thats why his post is one sentence long. As with all suspect information, an absence of any detail gives the game away.

I have posted extensively with reference to statistics collated on these devices, the literature of the the manufacturers, and most importantly the patents on these devices (see the bjmath.com archives)

So why dont you give us a link to these extensive posts?Because there arent any

(see the bjmath.com archives

What archives?

You really are quite insane.

you fucking trolling idiot:-

You need to look at the article again, it provides a method of determining the exact math.

Bottom line, the decision to do away with CSMs will probably be influenced by the lack of players, advantage or otherwise

I would have thought they would have looked at the profits rather than a head count.

Great!in these posts all you have done to back yourself up is give a link back to your original "how to beat a csm".

I see your favorite phase is "this is contradicted by the evidence" then you dont show any evidence,where is your statistical proof John?

How much profit does an empty table make?

"Except, it was'nt that simple. The first generation of continuos shufflers were introduced at the Mirage several years back.Two teams of professional card-counters, one led by Stanford Wong, burned out the game, making off with tens of thousands of dollars before the casino removed the machines. "

Can anyone verify the validity of the above statement? I'm sure older CSMs were exploitable, but the latency on the new ones are even tougher to exploit. Here are my thoughts: I would never question his ability to do so and I would take his word on it, would Mr. Wong do us the courtesy of some feedback on that statement. Whether its true, or hype from someone else. Also, does he feel the new machines that are currently in use are still exploitable? Lastly, give us some figures such as bet spread, bankroll and other relevant figures.

If CSMs are exploitable as is claimed, why hasnt someone documented a precise method and how-to. It seems it would be the perfect advantage game if it were possible. Ploppies hate 'em. More hands per hour. No heat, cause the pit thinks they've beaten the card counter. Greater spreads too. Any thoughts?

Here are my thoughts: I would never question his ability to do so and I would take his word on it, would Mr. Wong do us the courtesy of some feedback on that statement.

This was raised on GC a few years back. Wong said that he was not actually leading a team but that he was there. I very much doubt he'll discuss it on a free open forum, maybe if you discuss it on GC he will respond. In any case it has little relevance here since the Mirage machines operated very differently from modern devices.

Also, does he feel the new machines that are currently in use are still exploitable?

He said something to the effect that the King csm would be tough to beat so my guess is no. I agree with that, the latency in the King isn't strong for it to be beaten that way.

If CSMs are exploitable as is claimed, why hasnt someone documented a precise method and how-to.

Read the article again, there are a dozen patents filed on these devices. There is no generic brand of csm. Each needs to be attacked on its own terms. A method that could beat the Shufflestars manufactured in Austria wouldn't work on the King csm and vice versa. In addition study the King csm patent and you'll see the latency level can be adjusted for each individual machine, so you'd need to clock each individual machine to determine precisely what was going on inside and exploit any weakness.

You cannot get any more precise than my article when discussing csm's in general. However, tell me about a specific machine and I can give you a specific method.

Start palming out low cards until you get an optimal TC?

if you were being sarcastic, but some dealers actually did this, periodically leaving handfuls of cards in the discard tray at random and then going back to continuous shuffling. Naturally you can ask them to reshuffle when those cards have a negative count (as they should) and keep a tactful silence when those cards have a positive count.

but on your note, maybe find a dealer you can work something with, and have him delay shuffling the low cards back in. Maybe create your own latency in a sense. Here's some thoughts.

Two man team: one is a dealer creating latency and the other is a player exploiting it.