Ringer said:
Hmmm...
I understand the point you are making
Respectfully disagree. Allow me to explain so we're on the same page:
When you reach the end of a shoe, the cards get
shuffled. When that occurs, you reset your count to 0. This is because the balanced shoe is once again completely unknown. No cards have been removed or revealed.
When you reach the end of a hand on a CSM table, the cards get
shuffled. When that occurs, you
must reset your count to 0. This is because the balanced "shoe" is once again completely unknown. No cards have been removed or revealed.
When you card count a shoe, you keep track of the true count in order to approximate the composition of the remaining cards. When you determine that there is a beneficial mix of good cards (high) to bad cards (low), you bet more on the next hand. Your money comes from laying out higher bets when you have a higher advantage.
When you card count a shoe, you cannot keep track of the true count. The cards are always shuffled back into the deck. Hence, before you bet, the deck is
always the same composition, which is perfectly balanced. You are at a disadvantage all the time. Your money comes out of your pocket, and goes into the dealer's chip tray.
but if this were the case then there should be NO fluxuation in the count other than a few from 0.
No. Given that a full table will barf out over 20 cards per hand, you WILL see huge swings both ways if you are trying to keep a running count. If you don't believe me, take a single deck. Deal 8 cards. Count them. Shuffle the deck, and deal 8 more. Add them to your running count. Keep doing that over and over, say 100 times. You will easily get counts of +/- 10 or more.
Now, do the same thing again, except before shuffling, write down the count on a piece of paper, and start fresh on the next deal. Add up all the numbers after 100 deals. It will be damn closer to 0.
Do it 1000 times, and it will be even damn closer to 0.
Nothing is random-- they are only unknown enough not to be predictible. That's close enough.
It's a machine and is designed to perform functions based on calculations.
Or an algorithm, which is much different than a single f(x).
Because of this basic flaw of machines it MUST be true that patterns occur. They may not be the same patterns you and I are used to from a shoe, but pockets happen.
Possibly. But you would need to know the EXACT algorithm that the machine uses, the EXACT order of the cards being fed into it, the EXACT way the machine handles those cards, and the EXACT method that the machine uses to salt its algorithm. And you have to calculate it all in the 5 seconds it takes the dealer to dump the cards into the slot and start the next hand. If you can do this, there's a Lt. Commander's position waiting for you on the Enterprise-D.
How do you explain my witnessing of the running count going up and down so high if the devices supposedly prevent it?
Explaination? Ignorance.
The machines aren't designed to prevent "clumps" or "patterns". In fact, if it was designed to know the composition of the deck and rearrange it to prevent a clump of 10s, it is effectively CREATING a pattern.
A CSM doesn't. It grabs the cards that it's fed, and using a secret method, drops them back into the "shoe" in a manner that's sufficiently random. It doesn't need to prevent clumps. And clump of high cards that occurs will be balanced out in the long run by clumps of low cards.
For what it's worth, you described the machine perfectly. Multi compartments on an elevator system.
The cards just played go on top of the pile in each compartment which means if that compartment is picked
Blueprints, please? How do you know the cards are put on the top of the compartment? What if they're put on the bottom? What if they're split up amongst multiple compatments? What if they're split it and inserted into a random position in multiple compartments?
you may see one or two of the same cards again the very next hand. But those cards got to the bottom of the pile in the compartments somehow.
1) There are 6-8 decks in a CSM. I'll leave you to prove the Queen of Hearts on the table is the same Queen of Hearts that was on the table the last hand.
2) See the "please prove they are only deposited on top" from above.
3) If they were dropped on the top of a pile, and the machine deals from the bottom, wouldn't the cards come out in REVERSE order?
4) The compartment (which contains an unknown number of cards, see "blueprints, please") could be emptied, and the top loaded cards dealt.
I really don't mean to be arguing with people who truely are far more experienced in blackjack, but using my own abilities of discerning perceptions I have to point out that pockets of cards MUST develop and MUST be pulled out of the deck at some point. The same 20 cards cannot be played hand after hand after hand unless the machine is designed specificly to do so.
Yes, they can, especially since, once again I will point out, that there are 8 decks used. 416 cards, with nearly a half-deck used each hand on a full table. With close to 100 hands dealt an hour, I would be more surprised if you weren't seeing the same cards.
As for "abilities of discerning perceptions", I'll politely not laugh and let zengrifter point you to his section of the website instead.
The predictability of the pockets is probably quite reduced to the point where the percentage doesn't seem as high as shoe's.... however that's why I believe a running count continuously divided by the amount of decks in the CSM would work correctly for the predictability.
Nope. If you don't know why by this point in the message, then you won't get it at all.
Who really WANTS to deal with such slim odds? Well when the running count gets to +30, what's the difference?
A better question: Who wants to deal with -0.5% odds? You do, if you play CSM. Who wants to deal with -0.5% odds and a huge Risk of Ruin? You do, if you play CSM and ramp your bets.
Maybe it's just cause I have more experience actually facing these machines and most professionals would rather not even try.
You're right. Professionals don't play games that guarentee a profit for a casino. And any pro who has managed to make money by break a CSM has either:
1) Figured out an easy, exploitable flaw in the design of ONE model or type of machine (unlikely)
2) Literally broken the CSM machine so the pit would have to open a shoe game instead.
I would just like to see some solid evidence instead of theory.
The same is required of you.
I don't believe it's wise to give up where an edge is still quite possible.
Given, but no one will act as if an edge exists without proof.
If in fact the CSM's ARE beatable with a true count always dividing the running count by the total decks....
If you take nothing from this thread, at least take this:
YOU CANNOT COUNT A CSM! By definition. A count resets upon a shuffle, and these
Machines
Continuously
Shuffle. The best you can do is sit a 3rd base and hope everyone elses cards create a TC of +1 so you can use an index play. You'll still be at a disadvantage, since no occasional TC +1 index play will balance out the 0.5% house edge. You cannot change your bet based on the count, because before every deal, the count (true or running) is
zero
then there's a whole new world that isn't even being watched by the houses. They're relying on us thinking the machines aren't beatable, which means they're even easier to sell to the casinos. Avoiding them is not the answer. Finding a way to beat them and pounding the money from them is the only way to get rid of them.
I don't argue that there may be a way to beat a CSM by identifying patterns and, essentialy, card sequencing or steering them. I don't aruge because to say it isn't possible would mean disproving every existing method. And black swans exists.
HOWEVER, if you are serious about taking advantage of a CSM by predicting its shuffle, concider:
1) Every company's CSM is different, and will shuffle differently
2) Every model made by the same company will be different will shuffle differently because of varying design.
3) Two identical models by the same company will shuffle differently, because of random seeds, salted algorithms, and other factors.
4) Even if you manage to 100% accurately learn a single CSM's pattern, you do not know the composition of the cards inside of it. You must play or watch THOUSANDS of hands until every single card has been revealed, or at least until a significant portion has been revealed.
5) Even if you manage to 100% accurately determine the order of the cards, you must play every spot yourself in order to do so-- and to take full advantage of the "ordered" deck properly.
6) Even if you manage to play through the tens of thousands of dollars of hands required to perfectly order the deck, you must contend with the table max. You won't be able to lay down enough money to take advantage of the good cards to overcome the huge amount of money you'll lose sequencing them.
7) Especially since, once you're perfected that sequence, it is unbelievably volitile. All it takes is for one card to jam or get damaged and be replaced, or for the pit to change the decks (which they do more often than it will take you to perfectly sequence), or the machine to break down, or any other factor that will change that machine, including:
8) If all of a sudden you (the already suspicious guy playing a full table) start throwing down huge bets and winning, and the wins are beyond the norm (especially if you are, essentially, calling your hands before they're dealt), the pit WILL shut down the table. "Sorry, sir, this table is closing". They'd rather play it safe, close a table and let the experts review the tapes later to determine if it was warranted.
Not to mention other factors, like are you sure you're working with Company X, Model Y, Version Z? What if it was just flashed to software Z.1? You won't know until tens of thousands of dollars are gone.
And how will you track the cards? Flip over ten random cards. Study them as much as you want. The turn them face down. What's their order? Can you do the same for 20? 100? 416? Can you recite them INSTANTLY? You can't use a computer in a casino. Can you do it with five TVs, loud, on different channels?
