ShuffleMasters

[PokerEveryDay]

For those who know this machine, does it really shuffle the cards randomly? Almost everytime I'm at a table that uses one, it seems the cards are very clumped. I was told it uses a paddle system to shuffle the cards? If so, this could explain it. What do any of you guys know?

Thanks in advance

[PokerEveryDay]

Nodody knows or has any opinions on this?

[dboy23]

the dinky ones you can buy at walmart absolutely suck. But I think you are talking about the ones built into some tables at casinos. They are obviously better. I don't know what kind of entropy they have but at my local casino the dealer usually gives it a few quick shuffles as well after the machine.

[doormat]

Shufflemaster machine is very effective. Steve Wynn invented his own machine at the Mirage but had to pull it because it had a bad algorithm and could be beaten.

doormat

[PokerEveryDay]

Yes, I'm talking about the ones casino's use that are $12K.

[Ohgod]

If the card distributions 'appear clumped' compared to a hand shuffle, that probably indicates that the Shufflemasters are giving you a MORE random shuffle than hand shuffling, since in general humans underestimate how much 'clumping' there should be in a random shuffle. This first came to prominence in bridge, I think - when mechanical shuffling came in, 'extreme' card distributions became much more common. It took a while for people to realise that this was because the old shuffling scheme wasn't randomising the cards enough, not that the new one was broken.

[PokerEveryDay]

I just notice patterns all the time when playing with a shufflemaster. For example; 2 10's hit the flop 4 out of 6, a jack hits the flop 8 out of 10, all low cards, all high cards, etc. like that. Rarely do I notice this with a hand shuffle, but it happens. This is simply an observation. If this is actually "random" then I rather it be clumped instead...LOL

[KDuff]

[ QUOTE ]
I just notice patterns all the time when playing with a shufflemaster. For example; 2 10's hit the flop 4 out of 6, a jack hits the flop 8 out of 10, all low cards, all high cards, etc. like that. Rarely do I notice this with a hand shuffle, but it happens. This is simply an observation. If this is actually "random" then I rather it be clumped instead...LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Observe 100,000 times and get back to us.

[Some9]

[ QUOTE ]
If the card distributions 'appear clumped' compared to a hand shuffle, that probably indicates that the Shufflemasters are giving you a MORE random shuffle than hand shuffling, since in general humans underestimate how much 'clumping' there should be in a random shuffle. This first came to prominence in bridge, I think - when mechanical shuffling came in, 'extreme' card distributions became much more common. It took a while for people to realise that this was because the old shuffling scheme wasn't randomising the cards enough, not that the new one was broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

could you explain compared to what "extreme card distribution" got much more common? I somehow don't get your post.

[Siegmund]

In bridge, cards are dealt out into 4 hands of 13 cards each. In social games, the cards played to each trick (normally all of the same suit) get collected into a stack by the person who wins the trick. If the deck is inadequately shuffled and these cards remain in a clump, the effect is to deal one of those cards to each of the four players on the next hand. This causes more evenly divided suits, and fewer long suits and fewer voids, than would be expected by chance alone.

Mediocre tournament bridge players will attribute their failure to win tournaments to absolutely anything except their own failure to handle their cards well, and one of the common accusations is that the computer-generated deals used in tournaments are rigged. (The computer deals are in fact fair.)

However, a) it's a very minor effect unless you shuffle really, really, really badly, b) it only afflicts games where order is imposed on the cards (most bridge players sort their 13 cards by suit and rank, most poker players get a lot fewer than 13 cards and don't sort them), and c) even in bridge, it afflicts social games with the cards thrown into the middle vastly more than it does duplicate bridge. In fact, I will add d): even in bridge, where this little statistical difference between hand and computer dealing exists, its impact is tiny compared to the various psychological reasons people whine about computer-dealt hands.

In other words, yes, it's a real, though trivia effect in some games; but no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the deficiencies of bad automatic shufflers in poker (which may leave exploitable information in the deck, but do NOT cause systematically more interesting or less interesting hands and flops.)