Why does the bike require the dealer to ask permission to scramble? - Page 2

Rick Nebiolo · #11 12-12-2006, 10:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lame.

Those DeckMate autoshufflers aren't super bitchin' in randomizing - and often dealers will not scramble new setups - note that flops from a new setup that has not been scrambled but only run through the deckmate once will seem oddly coordinated.

AB

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that the Shufflemasters used in LA are much better than a dealer scramble or not. Is there some research showing that they don't do as good a job as advertised?

~ Rick

AlienBoy · #12 12-13-2006, 12:24 AM

I've read the patent (I'm working on a home shuffle system, and am designing to avoid their patent).

There's an oddity in their design - a "gripper" grabs a *portion* of the deck, and the elevator that holds the rest lowers an inch, and a card is inserted in the gap.

The placement of the gap is determined by a pseudo-random algorithm in the microprocessor that controls the device. Here's the thing:

It appears that with wear, the gripper may not always hold the cards the CPU intends it to, this could result in small clumps near the middle of the deck that seems to be less randomized that desired(You know a deckmate is having problems holding the upper portion of the deck when the red light keeps coming on, and cards keep getting jammed).

I've watched deals from the first deck after a new setup, where the dealer placed the deck in after check, and with NO scramble, and noticed things like suited flops.

Having said ALL this, I may be reading more deficiencies into the machine than there are over the long term, and of course I have not taken a $15,000 Deckmate apart to examine it, nor have I done any serious testing - as such, my comments really should be considered merely anecdotal, and with a touch of sarcasm.

I have not seen enough deals where the dealer did not scramble the deck after a new setup for any kind of statistical basis to prove or disprove this as a reality. But I've been surprised to see flops like 789[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on a flop right after a non-scrambled run through the thing. Of course I recognize this could be merely a coincidence - and we all know how the human brain deals with things like coincidences in patterns...

AB

Maybe there's a log=8 way to examine this LOL

AlienBoy · #13 12-13-2006, 12:59 AM

I might mention that I started looking at this after a dealer at Binion's mentioned that he felt he was seeing many more suited flops than with manual shuffles.

I might mention that one of my theories for this has nothing to do with the machine, just that there may be more hands per hours, resulting in a greater likely hood of suited flops for a given time period.

However, after looking at the internal design, it appeared that there were other possibilities.

AB

Rick Nebiolo · #14 12-13-2006, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I've read the patent (I'm working on a home shuffle system, and am designing to avoid their patent).

[/ QUOTE ]

A decent reasonably priced home shuffler would be a big hit IMO.

The rest of your post is great. Now I'm beginning to look at this whole thing with a lot more skepticism.

~ Rick

psandman · #15 12-13-2006, 05:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I might mention that I started looking at this after a dealer at Binion's mentioned that he felt he was seeing many more suited flops than with manual shuffles.

I might mention that one of my theories for this has nothing to do with the machine, just that there may be more hands per hours, resulting in a greater likely hood of suited flops for a given time period.

However, after looking at the internal design, it appeared that there were other possibilities.

AB

[/ QUOTE ]

But your explanation wouldn't explain the dealer's claim that there were more suited flops in general, since your explanation revolves around a deck with is put into the machine unshuffled and unscrambled (suits together) which would not be the way the dealer usually puts the deck into the machine.

Personally based on my experiences with the shufflemaster, I believe the machine makes the deck as unpredictable as one can get (I say unpredictable because I do not believe there is a such thing as random)

AlienBoy · #16 12-13-2006, 02:14 PM

Yes, I recognize it's really two different issues - like I said, I believe the *dealer's* perception is merely the fact that there are more hands per hour, thus more chance to see a suited flop during a dealer's shift.

The point was that this is what prompted me to examine the patent for the device. Then when I noticed that some dealers stick a deck straight into the machine after checking it, without scrambling it, I saw a suited flop.

Now, mind you, it may be NOTHING more than coincidence, but looking at the gripper/elevator method it makes one wonder a bit. If the machine has wear or is out of adjustment, it seems possible for the "gap" to not be created in the position intended by the CPU. Like I said, I have not taken a machine apart, not done any kind of testing.

And I do agree with your statement on "random". Decks are never random - the cards are exactly in that order - you just don't know what that order is!

AB

Rick Nebiolo · #17 12-13-2006, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Personally based on my experiences with the shufflemaster, I believe the machine makes the deck as unpredictable as one can get (I say unpredictable because I do not believe there is a such thing as random)

[/ QUOTE ]

Especially when the number of combinations in the deck is 52! (somebody please correct me if I'm off a bit here).

Yeah, unpredictable is what really counts; kudos for getting my thinking straightened out. Random would be more important in running a MonteCarlo simulation for super long shots (e.g., likelihood of a jackpot hand being dealt), but my guess is even Andrew Prock's Pokerstove doesn't do a complete shuffle.

~ Rick

daveT · #18 12-13-2006, 02:42 PM

I would like to point out that one person, who I konw's owns a casino, told me that he thought the shufflers where a bunch of bunk. He explained to me that the shuffle is simply not as complex as a dealer shuffle.

As for randomness. If there is no way to correctly predict the flop, or what cards are in your opponents hand, then you are for all intents, dealing with a random situation.

I think that the "shuffle" is helped by the muck, as that would be the most visibly suffled part of the deck.

private joker · #19 12-13-2006, 02:47 PM

Good post, AB -- you justified a comment that initially seemed like gambler's superstition.

AlienBoy · #20 12-13-2006, 02:56 PM

Somewhere I read that "riffle riffle cut riffle" does a poor job of randomization, and that scrambling the deck is the best way to manually randomize.

Theoretically a deckmate should work well to re-distribute cards - my question/contention is that mechanical wear in the gripper results in the gap being located in other than the CPU determined location.

AB