CSM -Running count?

To all-

I don't claim to be a statistician/mathmetician, but I have been reading a lot of the BJ literature & posts on the various BJ Boards & have some questions. Regarding the possibility of using a running count on CSM's (King Master Shufflers)- if we assume that the count will average "0" over a million hands, why can't we assume that if we have a very large positive or negative "running count" - say +/- 15 (counting started at the point that we enter the game) that we will start to see a trend in the other direction, and change our betting to take advantage of this expected event? In fact, when keeping a count, and seeing it get very positive + 13 or so, suddenly you get a whole glut of large cards coming out to even the count. Then the "running count" may stay in the range of +/- 5 or so, then take off into a high positive/negative range. It seems that there should be some probabilities where at any point, you can expect the trend to reverse direction (towards 0) a certain percentage of the time. I have also been trying to track clusters of cards going into the box together - and watching to see how many hands it takes to have them come back. Some have obviously reappeared - all three cards, in same order, within a spread of 5 cards, at two decks later (5 rounds of 7 spots dealt) while other groups have just disappeared (got stuck or split up) and I didn't see them for 10+ rounds. I will continue investigating - I think that the quickest way to move the machines out is to find a way to get an edge over them and spread the word.

Good Luck to all.

CD

Using this same logic, with a coin flipped a million times the number of heads and tails should be about equal. So, if you see a coin come up tails a bunch of times, you should bet on heads because sooner or later it has to 'even out'.

No it doesn't. Review the Theory of Large Numbers. The appearance of a large number of heads (or an extremely high count) will go down percentage-wise as the number of trials increases, but the actual numeric inbalance, doesn't have to 'even out' or return to zero.

And as you said "sometimes" the cards come right out quickly, in the same order even, from the CSM. "Sometimes" they disappear and don't come out from the CSM for a long time. You will find that this "sometime" is pretty much random. Better to spend your time trying to predict when that megabuck slot machine is going to line up, your return is much greater.

After reading your message and reflecting on it for some time, I think the main defective in your argument is your lack of understanding of psuedo-randomness. The company, as I understand it, has an algorithm that creates psuedo-random shuffles. Therefore, if you or anyone can find a defect, the company can simplying revise its algorithm (on a continuous basis, if need be).

why can't we assume that if we have a very large positive or negative "running count" - say +/- 15
This is quite possible (given the law of large numbers), but the problem is that you don't know when this will occur ahead of time in order to exploit it. One can't predict the trend, and that is consistent with the concept of psuedo-random algorithm.

The way I have beaten CSM in the past is that the dealer gets lazy and doesn't re-insert the cards until after 3 or 4 rounds.

forking822 - thanks for the reply. I appreciate your comment about the odds of heads coming up on the 15th throw, still 50% each time. But, if as I understand the King shuffler, there are 11 cards in the ramp of the shoe that do not get substituted, and 19 shelves of cards within the machine. So if we reach +15, and we freeze the situation, the true count of the 5 deck box would be +3. If the first eleven cards can't change, and the next 11 (one shelf or so) will only get a couple of cards (or maybe none) from the next dealer group insert (when we unfreeze) it seems that we have 1/2+ deck of cards averaging a +3 count to play into - maybe I'm not seeing it right. thanks,

CD

"The latency of distribution" :-)

;)

A machine which you put inside your mobile phone which will give you a HUUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE edge over the casino.
There is a micro camera in the arial which records the cards and the order in which come out in a round,then it records which order the dealer sticks them back in the CSM.
Ok now there is a sound wave analysis machine in the phone which can predict in which order the next round will come out as it analizes the shuffle wave form and I already know how a CSM shuffles sao this is incorporated aswell,very predictable actually.

Anyway the phone sends you a text message which shows the sequence of the cards,clever eh? When you throw in the "latency of distribution" and some "anti-linear regression dynamics" into the equation the whole thing amount to a HUUUUUUGGGGGEEE edge for the player.

It also has a pitboss radar in it,a heat detector and a stun gun to deal with nasty security.

I am almost finished in my garage with this.It will come in 3 colours green,red,blue so it can blend into the baize.

Anyone interested?

reset to zero but unpredictably. If you get a +10 running count after the first round you do indeed have a +2 true count (5 decks in a CSM). This gives you a small edge for a few decks but ultimately the small cards are re-inserted into the machine and effectively your edge is nullified after another round or two.

Keeping a running count on a CSM is a huge wase of time unless you are checking to see if there is some sort of other malfunction that leads you to believe that a clump of big cards is being repeated over and over again.

Unfortunately, the CIA thought it was a bomb and confiscated it. $200k in R&D up in smoke (yawn).

But I signed a contract with the casinos which forbids me from talking about it. Sorry.

MY design uses UHF (ultra-high-frequency) sound waves to CONTROL the CSM and thus decide the order of the cards. Additionally, the built-in Cray supercomputer employs sophisticated hacking algorithms that automatically alter the casino's pit computer and thereby allow me to obtain any comps I desire. However, its greatest feature IMHO is the walkie-talkie feature that automatically contacts the CW when my drink gets low, thus helping me to avoid dehydration at the table.

Dog Hand

CD, I was thinking something similar. However, I don't see any point in keeping a running count at a CSM. But if you see a round that goes to a count of say +15, meaning a true count of +3, I think you should raise your bet for the next hand. In a five deck CSM, those 19 shelves will hold 14 cards. If the buffer (or ramp) consists of one shelf at a time, then you know that at least the next 14 cards can't contain any of the 20-25 mostly low cards just played. If the next round requires more than those 14 cards, it is not likely the next 14 will get too many of them either, maybe one or two. So I'd count each round at a CSM, but not keep a running count. The opportunity for advantage play (or a warning to decrease your bet or sit out a hand) won't occur often, and it can only last for one hand, but it will occur sometimes. We have all seen rounds very heavily tilted either to low or high cards.

Anyone else got anything to add to this? This may be a partial antidote to CSM's.

BTW, are you the same CD I've seen over at hitorstand.net?

But, if as I understand the King shuffler, there are 11 cards in the ramp of the shoe that do not get substituted.

Assume 5 decks using high-low (or even KO for that matter); what is probability the next 11 cards (in the ramp) will be all be high cards: ~0.00191%. You are talking about a very small probability (note the % sign).

Good luck.

Thanks for that post forking822 -- From the way I read the Shuffle King website, the machine has 19 shelves and can work with either four or five decks. I think the 11 number comes from four decks (208/19=10.947), so for five decks it would mean there's a ramp of 14 cards (260/19=13.684). That ramp will not contain any cards from the previous hand, and if a second shelf has to feed that subsequent round as well, wouldn't any card from the previous hand have only a 1/18th chance of landing there?

So suppose you had a round of approx 25 cards, consisting of three highs, eighteen lows, and four neutrals, for a net count on that hand of +15, divide that by 5 decks, you've got a true count of +3 going into the next hand. At a table with four players plus dealer the minimum number of cards used would be 10, and the max I'm guessing is around 25. Make some allowance that a second shelf will be needed that may contain one of the lows from the previous round, you're still scraping up against a True Count of +3, aren't you?

I was at a four player table six-deck shoe Friday where the running count jumped by 15 in one round because of a high number of low cards including splits, and the next round was excellent for the players -- lots of high cards. (And I had of course raised my bet.) It made me think about CSM's because of the ramp (buffer) in them.

Question: When you say the probability is 191/1000's of one percent, probability of what exactly do you mean?

Desert Dog -

Thanks for the post. I have posted at several other sites looking for input on CSM strategies. Most of the experts favor boycotting them - but there are a few folks, Boris@borisbj21.com for one, who appear to be working on ways to gain an edge over the CSM's. I have spent over 16 hours, within the past 4-6 weeks, playing against the CSM's, with mixed results. I am about 15 units ahead, but have had several recent trips end in the minus column. I am not confident at this point that I have found any strategy, or read about anyone else, who can beat the CSM's on a regular basis. Unfortunately, the lack of complaints by patrons at the casino, and the CSM press releases, don't seem to indicate that they will be leaving in the near future. I will probably take a break from them for a while, and wait for the opportunity to play against non-CSM games, and keep watching the BJ community for word of progress against, or the departure of, the machines.

Good luck to all - may your edge always be sharp!

CD