what's the point of shuffling a new setup w/auto shufflers?

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe the shufflers are truley radom?

I ran an unshuffled deck through one of these machines and one might think that in the end two of the cards that were touching each other would still be touching each other after the machine was through, but that was not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exercise for the reader. What are the odds that after a random shuffle two cards that were once next to each other will still be next to each other?

But you're right, Shufflemasters are not "truly random". They use a pseudo random number generator. I read through the patent for one of these things once and apparently there is no source of truly random numbers within. Which is a little sad since you'd think in a $15K box they could find room to put a source of real randomness, but probably not really a real world issue. It seeds the PRNG from variations in timing from human-entered events. If they did it right, and you'd hope Shufflemaster has people who understand this stuff, it'll be fine.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe the shufflers are truley radom?

I ran an unshuffled deck through one of these machines and one might think that in the end two of the cards that were touching each other would still be touching each other after the machine was through, but that was not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exercise for the reader. What are the odds that after a random shuffle two cards that were once next to each other will still be next to each other?

But you're right, Shufflemasters are not "truly random". They use a pseudo random number generator. I read through the patent for one of these things once and apparently there is no source of truly random numbers within. Which is a little sad since you'd think in a $15K box they could find room to put a source of real randomness, but probably not really a real world issue. It seeds the PRNG from variations in timing from human-entered events. If they did it right, and you'd hope Shufflemaster has people who understand this stuff, it'll be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as random other than as a purely theortical excerise.

The goal of a shuffle should never be randomness since that is unacheivable, rather the goal should be unpredictability.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as random other than as a purely theortical excerise.

The goal of a shuffle should never be randomness since that is unacheivable, rather the goal should be unpredictability.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty thin semantic quibble. Unpredictability pretty much is randomness.

[psandman]

not really in this context. he is arguing that the Shufflemaster is not really random because a computer can't truly generate a random number, yet to a player in the actual game that number is unpredictable.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
not really in this context. he is arguing that the Shufflemaster is not really random because a computer can't truly generate a random number, yet to a player in the actual game that number is unpredictable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually a computer CAN generate a truly random number with a little analog real-world help. Radioactive decay, noise on a reverse-biased junction... these are standard ways to do it. And you can buy hardware that does it. I tinkered a bit 10 years ago with a hardware RSA processor to speed up secure HTTP requests, and it included a truly random number generator within. Shufflemaster coulda included one of these if they wanted to.

PRNG's generate non-random, but hopefully unpredictable values. Which is what the Shufflemaster is using. The problem with PRNGs is that if they are implemented poorly, they can be predictable--you need some sorta random seed to get 'em started, and for this Shufflemaster claimed to use timing between human-entered button pushes or whatnot.

Folks who shoulda known better have been caught by poor PRNG implementations. Don't recall which one, but some online poker site had this issue, and a keno machine had this issue, and Netscape early in its life was found to be predictable when picking a key to use to secure secure HTTP.

Basically one just has to hope Shufflemaster's engineers weren't stupid. But even if they were, in practical use in a casino it's pretty tough to see how you could ever take advantage of it. So just maybe the first shuffle out of the box after it is powered on will be guaranted to be one of 100,000 different possibilities. It's still hard to see how anyone could ever take advantage of it.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thankfull a lot of rooms have gone to a "no setup unless there is something physically wrong with the cards" rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a problem with that rule. Do you see why?

<font color="white">If a player wants a set-up bad enough, he'll start damaging the cards to get one. No, that's not some stretch of a theory, I've seen this in action.

One room I worked at required a setup if a card fell on the floor, so all the set-up PITA's would make a big show out of dropping a card, and making sure the dealer saw the card being dropped, to get their precious set-up. </font>

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe the shufflers are truley radom?

I ran an unshuffled deck through one of these machines and one might think that in the end two of the cards that were touching each other would still be touching each other after the machine was through, but that was not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exercise for the reader. What are the odds that after a random shuffle two cards that were once next to each other will still be next to each other?

But you're right, Shufflemasters are not "truly random". They use a pseudo random number generator. I read through the patent for one of these things once and apparently there is no source of truly random numbers within. Which is a little sad since you'd think in a $15K box they could find room to put a source of real randomness, but probably not really a real world issue. It seeds the PRNG from variations in timing from human-entered events. If they did it right, and you'd hope Shufflemaster has people who understand this stuff, it'll be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

News flash:

Manual shuffles are not "truly random" events either.

In fact, the whole concept of randomness is just a weak excuse for a mind that is too weak to perceive and process all the relevant inputs.

However, I think I have bigger and easier to fix leaks in my game than this.

[JJNJustin]

It gives the illusion that the cards are being randomized. Why wash the cards before you put them in the shuffler? Same illusion. Shufflers are hooked up to a master computer controller which controls the order in which the cards are placed in the deck.

-J

[Quadstriker]

[ QUOTE ]
It gives the illusion that the cards are being randomized. Why wash the cards before you put them in the shuffler? Same illusion. Shufflers are hooked up to a master computer controller which controls the order in which the cards are placed in the deck.

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Moron.

[Quadstriker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because people are idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

^The correct answer.