percent

what percent of casinos use these auto shuffle machines? i am just getting into card counting, so i am wondering if it is still worth it, or has the casino taken steps to hinder a counters positive expectations. thanks for any advice...

boomer,

First of all, I assume that you're chiefly interested in Continuous Shuffle Machines (CSMs), rather than Auto Shuffle Machines (ASMs), since ASMs are not detrimental to card counters (though they wreak havoc with shuffle trackers).

Using the May issue of Current Blackjack News (CBJN), I selected a state at random. (If you're curious, it's the state with a long, Long history of corruption in its highest office.) One-third (33.3%) of the casinos were listed as using CSMs, which sounds bad. However, when I analyzed the percentage of BJ tables that have CSMs, I got slightly less than 9%. Even among the casinos with CSMs, none had CSMs on more than half of their BJ tables.

In fact, over the past two years, I've noticed that more CSMs have disappeared than appeared.

Hope this encourages you!

Dog Hand

I like the auto shuffling machines. I don't shuffle track so it doesn't bother me. I don't like continuous shuffling machines (csm's). I like the auto shuffling machines because I think randomness actually helps a card counter. I haven't done any computations because I wouldn't no where to start, but I believe that the hand shuffles aren't very good. Because of this, shoes in which the dealer wins more hands than the player are, in my opinion, likely to continue even in positive counts. Is this bull ? Am I thinking like a ploppy ?

All I know is, on CVBJ, I played with the shuffle tracking turned on with a shuffle designed by myself that imitated a certain casino. I played shoe after shoe with no randomization just shuffle after same shuffle. I lost nearly 5000 dollars even though I was shuffling whenever the count went below -1. I was basically playing only positive counts. I was spreading 1 - 12 and playing nearly perfectly.

Then, I understood what was happening and turned randomization back on and that is when it turned around. It was basically like playing at the same table for 40 hours without cards being changed or anything. Actually, I believe CVDATA version 3 is going to explore this.

Does anyone agree with me that a player playing at the same table for 40 hours straight (with no card change ups) is getting a bad sample ? In terms of statistics, I believe a statistician would say that is, in fact, a bad sample.

Because of this, shoes in which the dealer wins more hands than the player are, in my opinion, likely to continue even in positive counts. Is this bull ? Am I thinking like a ploppy ?

memorymaster,

If you click the link below, you will find Norm Wattenberger's Blackjack Data Repository. I used this site to confirm my suspicion that your thoughts are definitely tending in a ploppish direction. I selected a decent game: 6D, 83% pen, No Cover, S17 & DAS, with a 1:8 spread, and checked the table named Cumulative Win, Loss & Tied Percentages by TC, using HiLo as the counting method. As you can see for yourself when you call up this table, the only time you'll win more hands than you lose is when the TC is greater than or equal to +5, which occurs only 2.96% of the time. Thus, the vast majority of the time, you'll lose more hands than you win, even in positive count situations.

Don't fear thinking like a ploppy (TLAP)... only fear not realizing that you ARE TLAP and therefore are not taking steps to think like an AP.

Dog Hand