Who has the actual CSM report?

Are the CSM increasing or decreasing?
Or are the shuffle machines(not CSM)
increasing?

Good news: CSMs are on the decrease.

Bad news: They are frequently replaced with games featuring 6:5 payout on Naturals.

Personally, I'm optimistic. It seems to me that getting paid $12 instead of $15 on a Blackjack with a $10 bet out, is much more in your face as opposed to the disadvantage of a CSM to the unknowledgeable player.

Michael Belgard wrote:
Personally, I'm optimistic. It seems to me that getting paid $12 instead of $15 on a Blackjack with a $10 bet out, is much more in your face as opposed to the disadvantage of a CSM to the unknowledgeable player.

I don't see how CSMs pose a disadvantage to unwary players. My understanding is they actually favor everyone except counters because they ensure that every round has the "off the top" house advantage. The average house edge playing through a regular shoe is marginally higher (ie, worse for players) due to the cut card effect.

I would presume casinos are looking for alternatives to CSMs not because players hate them but because the casinos have determined that their game-protection value isn't worth the high cost of the machines. Don't they have to rent them for $10,000/month?

Maven

A typical CSM game has only 4 decks, versus 6 decks for a shoe. Your normal player gains about 0.10% due the the slightly higher chance of Blackjack.

Additionally (as mentioned before), continuous shuffling keeps the entire game close to a 0 True Count, meaning basic strategy is most often the best play. In a shoe game, basic strategy is not as efficient (i.e. still hitting a 10 v 16 when TC is +1 or more)

There is nothing in the CSM to keep the true count close to Zero.
Sorry, the count will fluctuate just as much as it will in a shoe.
Basic strategy is just as efficient in a shoe as against a CSM.

The decrease in disadvantage from the missing cut card effect in a CSM, is made up by the 15% increase in hands per hour.

I am also optimistic about this as well, and have found little recently to be optimistic about in BJ.
It will be a lot easier to point out to a ploppy that his natural only paid 6:5 than it would be to try to convince him to play elsewhere, because this particular house uses a CSM:
"Hey buddy, congrats on that natural! Too bad it didn't happened over a Casino X, though. You'd have gotten $37.50, instead of the $30 these guys are stiffing everybody with!"
Just plant the seed and let people's suspicious nature take its course.
Take care,
@^)
Cyclops

The decrease in disadvantage from the missing cut card effect in a CSM, is made up by the 15% increase in hands per hour

That is incorrect. It is an assumption based on the false notion that csm's redistribute cards instantly. They don't. This discussion has already been done do death on the bjmath beginners page for those who care.

I've never heard a ploppy call it a natural. Call it a blackjack when you're in character.

Will you be playing at that table to be able to point out to them that they were short payed?

A CSM example I have reported here before that I use: When passing a CSM table where the dealer has just made some incredibly unlikely hand (such as maybe hitting her 16 multiple times for a 21,) I laugh out loud and say "Man, you'd have to be an idiot to play against those cards stacking machines!" I keep on walking and never hang around the table after saying that, and immediately move on. Just plant the seed.
@^)
One could easily do the same with the 6/5, but it would actually be even easier than with the CSM's: Simply feign (sp?) ploppy ignorance about the 6/5 payoff!
Your standing behind/walking by a table, someone gets a natural, and you, being the great, forthright and upstanding guy that I'm sure you are,..
@^D
..you don't want to see a fellow player shorted by an apparent "dealer error". So you say something like
"Hey, the dealer didn't pay you the full amount for your "Blackjack"!
The dealer will no doubt sigh, and for the 111th time, explain that its a 6/5 game. Reply in astonishment (mixed with a little indignation) something like:
"WHAT! You only pay $30 instead of the usual $37.50? Everybody knows that a BJ is supposed to pay 3/2! What a ripoff!"
(Even a total idiot ploppy knows that $37.50 is more than $30!)
...And then walk off immediately. Don't even wait for a response. That way, you don't come off as some smart a$$ counter, but rather as just another player who knows the usual payoff is 3/2. No harm done to your cover at all.
@^)
The dealer probably isn't going to call the floor over if she thinks you're just passing by and not going to stick around and make trouble. She's more intereseted in getting the game back in play and maybe getting some tips. However, if you hang around her table after saying that, she may call the floor, sensing you are going to get the rubes up in arms, because no dealer wants a mass player bailout at their table: No tips.
Just my 2 cents worth.
@^)
Cyclops

When playing on the CSM, the cards get shuffled after every round.

You are playing with an infinite deck. (Not the 4 decks that are in the CSM.)

Simple example: 5 rounds are played head on with the dealer, 4 deck CSM. It is possible that the "Jack Of Clubs" (or any identical card) has come out in every round.

The odds of obtaining a blackjack is higher in a infinite deck.

Other CSM disadvatages (for both Player and Casino):

1) No Cut Card. (This prevents a player from setting up the game)

2) Less Boxes are played (Some players will only want one or two boxes open and prevent other players from opening up boxes. Since there is no break or cut card, the table can have the same players all day discouraging opening new boxes.

3) Cards are hidden
If the dealer gets "21 out of no-where" say 3 times in a row, then the player will question any "house fixing".
A traditional shoe, the Casino has got nothing to hide and "put the blame back on the player for cutting the cards

You are playing with an infinite deck. (Not the 4 decks that are in the CSM.)
The odds of obtaining a blackjack is higher in a infinite deck.

This is wrong for two reasons.

First, the chances of getting a blackjack become LOWER, not higher, the more decks you use.

Second, CSMs don't use an infinite deck, they use four or five decks that are shuffled every round (except for the effect of distributed-card latency something-or-other about which Clarke Cant and John May will prattle on for an hour and a half if you let them, but I digress). If it were an infinite deck, you could see twelve aces of spades in a row. Obviously, this cannot happen. The chances of getting a blackjack in a CSM are the same as in a shoe game with the same number of decks.

Instead of saying 3-2 for a BJ, say 1 1/2 to one, sounds even more ploppyish.

you wrote:
"The chances of getting a blackjack in a CSM are the same as in a shoe game with the same number of decks."
This is wrong.

I can play all day, or all week, or one year on a CSM and it is possible for an ace not to be dealt.

If the dealer deals all the way to the last card (cut card removed for this example)from a traditional shoe, then it is possible all cards to be dealt. (Therefore an ace of spades has to come out)

I agree with you on the first isssue regarding chances of a blackjack with respect to decks used. Thank you for corrceting me.

except for the effect of distributed-card latency something-or-other about which Clarke Cant and John May will prattle on for an hour and a half if you let them, but I digress

The King has a ready-to-deal stack of seven cards ie effectively a cut-card seven cards deep. This is in stark contrast to what is commonly said about csm's, that they eliminate the cc effect. You may find this "prattling", I prefer to think of it as correcting other people's misconceptions and misinformation.