I think CSM's are vulnerable

Played CSM's for 4 hours and made 15.5 units. Though really, it is too much work to make it worth while. I rotated through about 50 tables, back-counting and never sitting down. If I played, it was no more than 5 hands before I assumed the count was nearly worthless. It would be valuable to know how many cards are in the nose of the CSM shoe that are not being mixed with a new set of cards as they are placed into the top of the unit.

I doubt anyone even remotely suspected me as a counter. I think I appeared to be one hell of a "table hopper".

Even if it was a bunch, you'd be talking about something like a 6 deck shoe with 4.5 decks cut. You'd have to wait a long time for very tiny edges. Something to do absent any other profitable opportunties at all. This seems like much effort for very little return.

This particular casino is running 5 decks in their CSM. Your right to an extent, it does seem like much effort for very little return. However, it appears that the nose of the CSM may be holding about two decks that are not part of what is being shuffled. In addition, on average, the dealers don't reinsert the discard tray cards until there is about 35 cards in the tray and the table is full of hands. That is a total of about 156 seen cards which is 3/5ths pen. Given this observation, I believe it may be quite beatable. Especially given the pit crew is not even thinking to look for counters. Therefore, I can back-count, wong and table hop like a mad dog 'til the cows come home........ or at least 'til my feet are soar.

I would really like to see what's happening inside a CSM.

I'm really not a friend of wonging (I like to be seated while working)
but this might be the only way to beat the CSM's if the rules give the house an edge of 0.3% or more.
However if your assumption of 2 decks latency is correct you might as well sit down.
The latest generation of CSM's are far more efficient.But I think that in order to allow fast dealing the nose must contain at least 14 cards prior to dealing a new round.
In my opinion it's a good thing when players post their successes against CSM's.Hoping that ploppies will refuse to play the machines is just wishful thinking.The only way is to cast doubt on the invincibility of those dreadful devices.

Francis Salmon

Even if it was a bunch, you'd be talking about something like a 6 deck shoe with 4.5 decks cut.

A game where every round is dealt at the deepest point of penetration, as in this case, is much better than one which is dealt out in the normal manner.

Griffin's table "Gain for each unit bet in favourable situations" on pg 128 "elephant edition" of TOB, gives a figure of about .14% for each unit bet at that level of penetration. This is obviously beatable as a practical matter given the cover advantages, if not a great game.

That said I doubt you will find any machine that keeps that many cards out of play in the US currently.

If I stand, I can play a hand and leave if the count gets at all under +1. Whereas, if I sit, I'm stuck there. Standing always makes me look like a superstitious ploppy table-hopper. I can make that work on a casino full of CSM's. Playing CSM's for positive EV can only be done if you stay on the move.

I does appear to me that about 104 cards are possibly in the nose of the CSM in front on the shuffle action.

Francis, next time you see a CSM game, take a closer look at it. I would appreciate you reporting back on your close observation.

Let's assume you're right about the two decks in the nose.Together with the half deck they leave in the discard rack, this gives you a constant penetration of 2.5/5 which is not bad at all as GBV pointed out.Condition is, you stay at the table long enough.Whenever you switch tables you would have to start at penetration 0 again.
You should divide your count into five sequences of half decks.Whenever they put a half deck back into the machine, you eliminate the oldest one and you establish the new total count. It's probably best to mark the different partial counts with chips (hands of a clock).Whenever your aggregate count from these five halfdecks is +3 (TC +1.2) or higher you have the advantage. Otherwise you bet minimum.
On a CSM, you don't need to worry about cover (at least for the time being!).The mere fact of playing these machines is cover enough.
Your entire focus should be on keeping the aggregate count properly.For instance your RC is -4 but now a slug of -8 is coming back into play ,your new count would be +4 which means that you can attack.At the same time you must mark the partial count of the half deck that was just refeeded.This technique (rolling count) requires some training but it will become second nature after a while.Good luck!

Francis Salmon

When the other tables are full, we sit our asses down to play and justify ourselves for being there. You know, it's 4 deck off the top, we can f--- around with the latency, etc.

Using observation, experience and logic to attempt to beat a form of gambling is not "f------ around". It is solid AP analysis.

You have a point that using pseudo-scientific justification to justify negative expectation gambling is potentially dangerous. Any one who attempts this should be wary of the dangers and the huge difficulties of beating a csm.

That said, you should be glad there are people who are willing to put in the effort to beat these devices. But for a few dozen pioneering AP's these devices would be the dominant form of blackjack in the US, as they are in europe.

The main reasons that the spread of CSMs have been limited in the US is customer resistance and cost. A breakdown at a small casino with few tables and untrained dealers could be extremely costly.

...but I have never seen it substantiated anywhere. I mean, I have not heard some casino mogul say "we dumped the csm's because they cost too much". You get some stock market journalists speculating and idle pit boss comments but that is about it.
The first generation of machines introduced at the Trop were definitely burned out by advantage players. So were the european shufflestars-why would they bring in a new model if it were otherwise? I have seen some primary sources which support this.

Customer resistance and cost are universal factors, but they have not stopped csm's taking hold in places outside the US, which generally have many fewer AP's.

Probably cost is a significant factor. But, you've got to remember that casinos are incapable of doing proper cost-benefit analysis and are insanely risk-averse-if they weren't the games would be much better than they are and the promotional budgets would be bigger.

Interestingly, the one casino guy I have heard talk at length about this was Bill Zender. His explanation for the decline of the machines was rather different-he said casino personnel had some weird voodoo idea about csm's changing the card flow or something. Incredible, but probably true (that they believed that I mean).

The early versions of CSMs were also more prone to breakdown so that may have had something to do with their replacement with a new generation. I understand that APs were also able to take advantage of the weaknesses in their design and this could have played a role. Do you think enough money is being taken by American APs from the current versions of CSMs for it to be the main factor in limiting their spread?

I agree with you that a cost-benefit approach is not being properly applied by casino management but I think that the reason the spread of CSMs in the US has been limited may be due to the mature gambling market. High rollers may be more set in their ways and more resistant to major changes in the game. I think cost would be a lesser reason for a large casino unless the machines were extremely unreliable. Based on cost alone, the increase in hands dealt per table would more than make up for occasional down time.

Sequences of half decks could be done, but it is not long until the accuracy of the count is nothing but a calculated estimate. The problem with the "half-deck" count idea is that it is not always a 1/2 deck which is reinserted into the CSM. Given such, the count will lose accuracy as cards are reinserted back to the unit.

Still, I cannot see the benefit to sit down. I am very strict about playing in a + situation on a CSM, therefore the reason I stay on the move. Often, if I wong in a +1 and catch a BJ, I'm gone looking for another + count situation to wong in on. You can't just get up from a seated position a leave every time you get two faces or a BJ. I can get away with it if I'm standing.

The early versions of CSMs were also more prone to breakdown so that may have had something to do with their replacement with a new generation. I understand that APs were also able to take advantage of the weaknesses in their design and this could have played a role. Do you think enough money is being taken by American APs from the current versions of CSMs for it to be the main factor in limiting their spread?

It is as you seem to be saying due to a cocktail of factors. I doubt it is down to one single thing.
I have beaten the King shuffler for small amounts of money. However, the method I used wasn't fantastically profitable. It would take a well-bankrolled team to burn out the machines using the same technique. Others are using shuffle-tracking methods to beat the csm's about which I know comparatively little. Persi Diaconis, who is highly regarded as a mathematical expert on card shuffling, postulated that a shuffle-tracker could have a 10% edge, a rather unbelievable claim, but he does have the pedigree. So, I would not completely rule out the notion that AP's may be exerting considerable pressure on these infernal contraptions.

There are also external techniques analagous to front-loading, which are very profitable when you can find the right circumstances. These techniques can also hit a casino's table games margin,

I agree with you that a cost-benefit approach is not being properly applied by casino management but I think that the reason the spread of CSMs in the US has been limited may be due to the mature gambling market. High rollers may be more set in their ways and more resistant to major changes in the game.

That is undoubtedly true, but casino owners seem generally aware of irritating their best customers, and reserve them for lower-stakes players who will put up with all kinds of crap.

You used the f*** word and I quoted it back at you. That aside I thought I was just discussing the issue.

"You have a point that using pseudo-scientific justification to justify negative expectation gambling is potentially dangerous."

The fact that I am a degenerative gambler really bears no meaning on the fact that you can't make any worthwhile money on a CSM.

"Any one who attempts this should be wary of the dangers and the huge difficulties of beating a csm."

I'll set up a help hotline for everyone who got raped by the csm.

"That said, you should be glad there are people who are willing to put in the effort to beat these devices."

That's cool.

"But for a few dozen pioneering AP's these devices would be the dominant form of blackjack in the US, as they are in europe."

not sure what you mean by this.

Dave Jay