Just when I thought Vegas was legit

psyduck

Well-Known Member
#84
LOL! You guys are funny! Desert or dessert they may taste the same in Vegas! Seriously, what ZK brought up about pre-shuffled new cards is really fishy to me. If I have a choice, I will not play these cards. No other reason but cheat.
 

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
#85
psyduck said:
Seriously, what ZK brought up about pre-shuffled new cards is really fishy to me. If I have a choice, I will not play these cards. No other reason but cheat.
I completely concur. The reason the industry gives is that it saves time when opening a table. And it surely does save what 5, maybe as much as 10 minutes by eliminating those steps where both pit and dealer checks cards, front and back. And then the "wash" (mixing of cards). With pre-shuffled cards they can go directly to the shuffle.

But it is a short cut they should not take. A road they should not travel. It compromises the transparency that is the foundation of integrity that the industry is based on. The customer must believe he/she is getting a fair game. These procedures where put in for a reason.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#86
KewlJ said:
I completely concur. The reason the industry gives is that it saves time when opening a table. And it surely does save what 5, maybe as much as 10 minutes by eliminating those steps where both pit and dealer checks cards, front and back. And then the "wash" (mixing of cards). With pre-shuffled cards they can go directly to the shuffle.
They still check both the front and back where I play. What they don't do is check to see if all the cards are there. the shuffle machine does that. This means if you get a big delay in the process like a red light or whatever, they can't hand shuffle the other pack of cards because they haven't confirmed the exact cards that are there are the cards that are supposed to be there. They need to go through the shuffle machine and get a green light for that to be confirmed. I don't think the machines are cheating but I don't trust them either. While I don't trust the old school way of doing things much more, at least I had the piece of mind that if they were doing anything funny they had to do it right in front of my eyes. To someone with skills that is not hard to do.
 

ZenKinG

Well-Known Member
#87
KewlJ said:
I completely concur. The reason the industry gives is that it saves time when opening a table. And it surely does save what 5, maybe as much as 10 minutes by eliminating those steps where both pit and dealer checks cards, front and back. And then the "wash" (mixing of cards). With pre-shuffled cards they can go directly to the shuffle.

But it is a short cut they should not take. A road they should not travel. It compromises the transparency that is the foundation of integrity that the industry is based on. The customer must believe he/she is getting a fair game. These procedures where put in for a reason.
They're saving much less than 5 or 10 min, they're saving about 2 minutes. They still check the backs of the cards for marks with preshuffled cards. I'm not sure about the wash, but I know for preshuffled cards they still check the backs of the cards and some even check the front of the cards as well. They then end up throwing the preshuffled cards into the ASM. If it's pre-shuffled, why the need to shuffle it again? In case of a pre-set shuffle to favor the dealer? If that's the case and you don't trust the factory from which it came from, then who knows what's in there? We must rely on the ASM to know if every card is in there? I believe the ASM's only count the total number of cards, so 10s and Aces can be replaced with 4s and 5s and it will still signal a green light. Questions that make you go hmmm.
 
#88
ZenKinG said:
They're saving much less than 5 or 10 min, they're saving about 2 minutes. They still check the backs of the cards for marks with preshuffled cards. I'm not sure about the wash, but I know for preshuffled cards they still check the backs of the cards and some even check the front of the cards as well. They then end up throwing the preshuffled cards into the ASM. If it's pre-shuffled, why the need to shuffle it again? In case of a pre-set shuffle to favor the dealer? If that's the case and you don't trust the factory from which it came from, then who knows what's in there? We must rely on the ASM to know if every card is in there? I believe the ASM's only count the total number of cards, so 10s and Aces can be replaced with 4s and 5s and it will still signal a green light. Questions that make you go hmmm.
Not even a bad cheater would replace 10's with 4's and 5's. That's just asking to get caught. You have to give them a little more credit than that.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#89
ZenKinG said:
We must rely on the ASM to know if every card is in there? I believe the ASM's only count the total number of cards, so 10s and Aces can be replaced with 4s and 5s and it will still signal a green light. Questions that make you go hmmm.
The ASM can tell them what card is missing when a card is missing and what card has an extra. That is rank and suit. What I find suspicious is when the red light should have become lit during the shuffle but it didn't indicating it had been disabled. Like when a card or cards is or are in the shoe face up instead of face down. No red light? Why the hell not. That is supposed to trigger a red light every time. I have seen it often enough in casinos to figure most everyone else has seen it. One time there was about a quarter deck of face up cards spread throughout the shoe. They were mostly in a two deck zone.
 
#90
Cards do NOT need to be replaced or clumped...
...Griffin's TOB shows us that various shuffle procedures skew massively for the house.

For example, five perfect riffles on an unwashed deck gives the house 12% over BS.
 

JJP

Well-Known Member
#92
Tater said:
Ahem. Who doesn't like Lynyrd Skynyrd? Give Simple Man a listen and read the lyrics.:)
Skynyrd WAS great. But the version post plane crash just isn't the same. Most on here probably weren't born when that plane went down.
 

Tater

Well-Known Member
#93
Can't believe Don S missed the Leonard/Lynyrd fopaux. I guess it's "been along time since he was Led to do the stroll." ;)
 

DSchles

Well-Known Member
#94
"Can't believe Don S missed the Leonard/Lynyrd fopaux."

Not sure what you're referring to. I only see it spelled correctly, above.

Faux pas, on the other hand. ...!! That's about as bad a mangling of that term as I've seen. :)

Don
 

Tater

Well-Known Member
#95
DSchles said:
"Can't believe Don S missed the Leonard/Lynyrd fopaux."

Not sure what you're referring to. I only see it spelled correctly, above.

Faux pas, on the other hand. ...!! That's about as bad a mangling of that term as I've seen. :)

Don
Dummy and ZenKing were talking about being huge "Leonard" Skynard fans earlier in the thread.

Whoops, my and googles faux pas. The proper pronunciation was at the top and the word was listed on the bottom after the definition. Usually it's the other way around.

FYI Lynyrd Skynyrd was the name of a Southern rock band. Leonard Skinner, was a basketball coach who told his players their hair was too long. Those players later formed a band under Mr. Skinners name, but with a spelling twist to Southern pronunciation.
 

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
#96
ZenKinG said:
Card clumping an ASM completely nullifies the player cut before the game begins. Also we have NO IDEA what is in the shoe since the cards come pre shuffled in 90% of this mafia ridden piece of shit town. Theres so many people out there thag have no idea what is happening behind the scenes. Out of all the industries out there, we're supposed to expect a fair game from an industry that relies on taking your money. Thats a good one. Thats why it frustrates me so much the lack of transparency these days.
Don't know which casinos in LV use clumping ASM but I strongly suspect some PA casinos like Harrah's, The Meadows and Sand use ASM to clump cards, either permanently or selectively. I have encountered so many times this sequence, I called "counter killer". Playing straight using conventional bet ramp based on TC, I have lost most of my max bets again and again. To simplify the explanation first, let's assume the six-deck is composed of A,B,C,D,E,F. Each character represents one deck. Your shoe could be presented to you as ABCDEF, BCDEFA, CDEFAB, DEFABC, EFABCD, FABCDE, so the cut doesn't matter. To simply the process, we just use ABCDEF in this example. Also this is a level 2 count.

A is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC crossing these 52 cards is zero.
B is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC playing is zero.
C contains small card clump. It will boost RC by +20 to +30.
D is face card rich (face card to small card ratio is 2 to 1). It will reduce RC by -18 to -12.
E contains face card clump. But the face card is in the last 10 cards of the 52 cards. It will reduce RC by -20 to -30. (That means in first 42 cards, it contains less face cards than small cards. This is the tricky part that ASM beats AP.)
F is small card rich (face card to small card ratio is 1 to 2). It will boost RC by +12 to +18.

The worst cut is to cut in the beginning of deck F. Now after playing one deck, RC is probably +15. Then through the next two decks (A and B), you increase your bets but in fact you have no advantage. Then through deck C, the RC is increasing and you gradually increase your bet, but you are actually through the small card clump, dealer keeps making a hand on your high bets. Deck D is your final deck, but it is face card rich, not face card clump, there are not all face cards but well mixed face cards and small cards. Because of the extreme high count but the face card clump is actually in deck E behind the cut card, your index play is super inaccurate.

The above is the worst scenario when the cut card is placed in the worst place. But there is no right place. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck D, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is negative. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck C, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is neutral.

The above just demonstrates the anti-TC aspect of the sequence. It also contains the anti-BS aspect. I may discuss in the future.

I will finish the discussion with a current shoe that I did not follow my own modification and lost big. The dealer is one of my favorite. He cut it deep probably 45 cards off the six deck. When I know it is the last hand, it is about 50 cards left. RC is +28 for Zen. So TC is +28. I side count 8 and 9. There are seven 8 and 9 left. So theoretically I have high card count about 28, mid card count about 7, small card count about 14. I switched to two hands and have super max bet out. Unfortunately I don't get twenty. My tablemates don't get twenty. Dealer don't get twenty. It is clear that the ten face card clump is not into the play. Like ZK, I am not saying that it is impossible to lose at high count. I am saying I have seen the same sequence and playing it the conventional way, I have lost 80% of these max bets. I will discuss the remedy to this problem in the future.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#97
Why anyone would post ways for casinos to beat AP's is beyond me. Obviously BJGenius is working for the casinos. If he wanted to help AP's no details about how to defeat AP's would ever be posted. If there is truth to this and it becomes widespread we know what casino informant is to blame. Try thinking before you post a roadmap for casinos to follow to defeat AP's you moron. Please delete this nonsense because either you are wring and we all beat theses casinos regularly because it is BS , which means you are only serving to protect your honey holes. Or it is true and you are causing a spreading of this. Either way it is moronic to make the posts to begin with. Try being constructive rather than destructive. Specifics on how AP's can be defeated or on sensitive plays should never be made on an open forum. Most players play the side bets. This kind of clumping would turn most side bets into gold mines. So your logic is that they stop the one in a million AP from winning a little money by pouring far more money to the players that play the side bets? That sounds like a way for the casinos to lose a lot of extra money.
 

ZenKinG

Well-Known Member
#98
BJgenius007 said:
Don't know which casinos in LV use clumping ASM but I strongly suspect some PA casinos like Harrah's, The Meadows and Sand use ASM to clump cards, either permanently or selectively. I have encountered so many times this sequence, I called "counter killer". Playing straight using conventional bet ramp based on TC, I have lost most of my max bets again and again. To simplify the explanation first, let's assume the six-deck is composed of A,B,C,D,E,F. Each character represents one deck. Your shoe could be presented to you as ABCDEF, BCDEFA, CDEFAB, DEFABC, EFABCD, FABCDE, so the cut doesn't matter. To simply the process, we just use ABCDEF in this example. Also this is a level 2 count.

A is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC crossing these 52 cards is zero.
B is neutral, fairly randomized deck. The effect of TC playing is zero.
C contains small card clump. It will boost RC by +20 to +30.
D is face card rich (face card to small card ratio is 2 to 1). It will reduce RC by -18 to -12.
E contains face card clump. But the face card is in the last 10 cards of the 52 cards. It will reduce RC by -20 to -30. (That means in first 42 cards, it contains less face cards than small cards. This is the tricky part that ASM beats AP.)
F is small card rich (face card to small card ratio is 1 to 2). It will boost RC by +12 to +18.

The worst cut is to cut in the beginning of deck F. Now after playing one deck, RC is probably +15. Then through the next two decks (A and B), you increase your bets but in fact you have no advantage. Then through deck C, the RC is increasing and you gradually increase your bet, but you are actually through the small card clump, dealer keeps making a hand on your high bets. Deck D is your final deck, but it is face card rich, not face card clump, there are not all face cards but well mixed face cards and small cards. Because of the extreme high count but the face card clump is actually in deck E behind the cut card, your index play is super inaccurate.

The above is the worst scenario when the cut card is placed in the worst place. But there is no right place. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck D, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is negative. If you place the cut card in the beginning of deck C, the ten face card clump will appear when the count is neutral.

The above just demonstrates the anti-TC aspect of the sequence. It also contains the anti-BS aspect. I may discuss in the future.

I will finish the discussion with a current shoe that I did not follow my own modification and lost big. The dealer is one of my favorite. He cut it deep probably 45 cards off the six deck. When I know it is the last hand, it is about 50 cards left. RC is +28 for Zen. So TC is +28. I side count 8 and 9. There are seven 8 and 9 left. So theoretically I have high card count about 28, mid card count about 7, small card count about 14. I switched to two hands and have super max bet out. Unfortunately I don't get twenty. My tablemates don't get twenty. Dealer don't get twenty. It is clear that the ten face card clump is not into the play. Like ZK, I am not saying that it is impossible to lose at high count. I am saying I have seen the same sequence and playing it the conventional way, I have lost 80% of these max bets. I will discuss the remedy to this problem in the future.
Funny you mention harrahs and Sands. Those 2 places I struggled A LOT to win at and am still a net loser at both of them after hundreds of hours. Harrahs was the killer though, im down 13k all time at Harrahs Chester after more than 100 hours playing a very aggressive backcounting and heads up wonging out game. Maybe you mentioned these places as a troll because you know ive struggled there or maybe you are being sincere and youve also been killed at these places which if true maybe they are rigging the games there.

Regarding Vegas, my biggest suspects of cheating are Planet Hollywood, Bellagio, and Ballys. I also always had a bad feeling about Caesars and just stopped playing there as soon as I got here. I also played very little at Harrahs omce I got here because they cleaned me out immediately as soon as I got here and with the history of me vs Harrahs, I wasnt going to deal with them anymore.
 

Dummy

Well-Known Member
#99
ZenKinG said:
Funny you mention harrahs and Sands. Those 2 places I struggled A LOT to win at
It's funny. At the end of last year we looked at the team's individual results. Some members won the most at the Philly casinos listed.
 
Top