I can answer any clumping question here.

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
I think after eight years, my study, experience and experiments on ASM clumping finally paid off. Actually my ev on ASM is now greater than that on hand-shuffle BJ. You can ask questions regarding this topic and I will do my best to answer them.

johndoe

Well-Known Member
What evidence do you have of ASM's doing anything except random shuffling, and how did you do your analysis?

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
johndoe said:
What evidence do you have of ASM's doing anything except random shuffling, and how did you do your analysis?
No hard evidence. Just see more clumps on ASM than hand-shuffled when I force my brain to look for this pattern. Typical small clump (only A, 2, 3, 4, 5) non stop in a sequence of 15 cards or more appeared almost on every shoe. Then you know ASM is in beast mode. Because there is no card having higher rank than 5, the dealer will never bust. So the golden rule No. 1, don't double or split unless TC are really high or table do have some face cards so you know you are not in the middle of the small card clump.

AchillesBlackjack

Well-Known Member
BJgenius007 said:
No hard evidence. Just see more clumps on ASM than hand-shuffled when I force my brain to look for this pattern. Typical small clump (only A, 2, 3, 4, 5) non stop in a sequence of 15 cards or more appeared almost on every shoe. Then you know ASM is in beast mode. Because there is no card having higher rank than 5, the dealer will never bust. So the golden rule No. 1, don't double or split unless TC are really high or table do have some face cards so you know you are not in the middle of the small card clump.
This sounds like you’re just recognizing patterns that don’t exist.

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
AchillesBlackjack said:
This sounds like you’re just recognizing patterns that don’t exist.
Over the years, I found I have much more 55 v 5/4/3/2 and 54 v 5/4/3 hands at ASM table than hand-shuffled table. More importantly, I lost most of such double, even at very high count. It doesn't make sense. Espeically 55 v 5. I kept pointing out that how can double then get a small card, then dealer keeps drawing a series of small cards to make hand. It was the biggest drain when I played ASM BJ.. By avoiding such big losses, my return on ASM turns higher than the expected value. And it is really an easy fix. Be very cautious on doubling 9 against 3/4/5 or split 22, 33, 44, 55, against 2/3/4/5. It is a trap setting by people inventing ASM clumping. Not just me. Most of time when I advised ploppy to double on such hands because the book said double, they lost money, too.

johndoe

Well-Known Member
You will never be able to casually notice any such patterns objectively. Basing advantage play on this is no different than noticing the roulette wheel hasn't hit some specific number in a while so the wheel must be biased. It's pure confirmation bias and a terrible idea.

Secretarriat

Member
BJgenius007 said:
I think after eight years, my study, experience and experiments on ASM clumping finally paid off. Actually my ev on ASM is now greater than that on hand-shuffle BJ. You can ask questions regarding this topic and I will do my best to answer them.
... coming soon

Secretarriat

Member
BJgenius007 said:
Over the years, I found I have much more 55 v 5/4/3/2 and 54 v 5/4/3 hands at ASM table than hand-shuffled table. More importantly, I lost most of such double, even at very high count. It doesn't make sense. Espeically 55 v 5. I kept pointing out that how can double then get a small card, then dealer keeps drawing a series of small cards to make hand. It was the biggest drain when I played ASM BJ.. By avoiding such big losses, my return on ASM turns higher than the expected value. And it is really an easy fix. Be very cautious on doubling 9 against 3/4/5 or split 22, 33, 44, 55, against 2/3/4/5. It is a trap setting by people inventing ASM clumping. Not just me. Most of time when I advised ploppy to double on such hands because the book said double, they lost money, too.
Much has been written on the subject and it’s nice that you took a modern and serious look at it.
Obviously, random clumping exists but so does manufactured clumping through shuffling procedures (ASM and/or hand) and it’s not always easy to distinguish between the two. It seems that you now take advantage of ASM manufactured clumping with risk averse plays and tighter spreads.
Three questions
• Regarding ASM do you find casinos use what you describe as “beast” mode only at selective moments like busy Saturdays or do you see it consistently?
• Regarding hand shuffled games do you also find “manufactured” clumping at times? I have seen it at the most extremes like new cards, no wash, basic shuffle and deal. Something is indeed wrong when at high counts players get a Ten on a double down 20-25% of the time when the remaining ten ratio is in the 35-40% range.
• What kind of data can you provide us with? Are you aware of any sim based on “manufactured” clumping (ASM or hand). It seems that so far, no one has proved or disproved anything regarding that old clumping debate.

Last edited:

johndoe

Well-Known Member
Secretarriat said:
What kind of data can you provide us with? Are you aware of any sim based on “manufactured” clumping (ASM or hand). It seems that so far, no one has proved or disproved anything regarding that old clumping debate.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not on those who say that basing advantage play on "clumping" is nonsense. This has been going on for years and no one has offered a shred of objective evidence. It's all voodoo.

Secretarriat

Member
johndoe said:
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not on those who say that basing advantage play on "clumping" is nonsense. This has been going on for years and no one has offered a shred of objective evidence. It's all voodoo.
johndoe said:
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not on those who say that basing advantage play on "clumping" is nonsense. This has been going on for years and no one has offered a shred of objective evidence. It's all voodoo.
Take six new decks, no wash, do a basic riffle shuffle and deal. you'll have evidence of clumping. Problem is that with real cards, is that you can't record million hands experiments and therefore it's easy to deny it exists if you wished. I we assume for a second that manufactured clumping exists it's not easy to beat. If you don't believe you can lose 748 units (6D,S17,4.5/6) in 4000 hands (-3.25 SD) try CV software and set up the speed bias at "randomize bias extreme level" and you'll get absolutely killed. Not a chance. You probably won't see that level of clumping in the real world but you'll see certain levels of clumping whether they are manufactured or random. Like BJGenius and many others, I believe that it can be manufactured but it would be nice to have data on it, for or against. I don't really care who proves what.

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
LC Larry said:
All complete nonsense.
That is your response to this topic every time this discussion occurs.

What is complete nonsense? That the technology is available for a shuffle machine to arrange cards in any pre-determined order? Just look at some of the technological thinks that occur to today. Anyone arguing this isn't possible has been pulling a Rip Van Winkle for the last 20 years.

Or maybe your argument is that the casino industry would never knowingly cheat? I will not even argue that, just laugh.

I think my position is well known. I KNOW it can occur. I differ with BJGenious in how often it occurs or that it occurs regularly. I don't like the term "beastmode", because that plays into a conspiracy theory, but these machines can be programed to clump card in any number of ways that increase the house advantage. The problem is that these machines do not come with that programming built in, which is Shufflemaster 100% protecting themselves. But I am told the procedure is fairly simple for anyone with a little programming knowledge.

Despite my opinion on the matter being different that most here and also not exactly the same as BJGenius, I "liked" Johndoe's post above about confirmation bias. It is very hard to prove. I think it would require filming 100's and 100's of shoes played, even 1000's. And we can't do that.

What was it 4 or 5 years ago now, I made an accusation against a casino after watching/playing 200 shoes. What I was looking for back then was a TC of +4 or -4. It got to one of these True counts 192 of 202 shoes or something like that. THAT is not normal for games I play. That occurred because there was always a group of 10 value cards clumped together. If that clump of 10 value cards came out early you would have a high negative count (-4 or less) and if it came out later you would have a high positive count prior to the clump of high cards. Either way this clump of 10 value cards couldn't hurt the casino because even if card counters were counting and betting up before the clump. You just had a couple rounds with a lot of 20 vs 20 pushes.

I didn't recognize it at the time but Aces were separated from this 10 value card clump, meaning far fewer blackjacks. THAT was the real culprit.

People say "why hasn't it been discovered and proven then?" Well it would be very hard to prove. I have had possession of machines that could do this. But That isn't going to hold up as legal proof. It would literally take thousands of shoes of play being taped and that can't happen.

Someday it will all come to light, but until then, I would just be careful. Be vigilant as you should be for all casino cheating, because this industry and people in this industry will cheat. They have proven that time and time again.

KewlJ

Well-Known Member
The G Man said:
I am not going to reply to Larry, as he is a nut, but you seem like a reasonable person, so I will reply.

I just want to be clear what you are arguing. That it can't be done? Or that it isn't being done?

When I was a kid, I watched reruns of the Six Million Dollar Man TV show. I wonder how much he would cost in today's dollars? So anyway, things that were fiction back then are real today. They can put all kinds of computer chips and computerized miniature medical devices inside a person to keep them a live. Cell phones are miniature computers and everyone carry's one and spends too much time on them. We send people to live in space for up to a year at a time. Alexa. Just look at all the things Alexa can do. So are you telling me the technology for a shuffle machine to put the cards in any order desired is not there?

I don't think that is what your are saying. So you must think that it isn't being done. That the casino industry would not do something like this. The same industry that has cheated almost every chance they have had. Mindplay for example. The same industry that thinks it ok to fill people with free booze until they can't stand just to be sure they lose every dollar in their pocket. The same industry that came up with cashing peoples pay checks and retiree's social security checks, so they would lose that money meant to live on at the casino on day 1 of the month. Is that what you are telling me, that this industry would never use this technology that obviously exists?

Please tell me which you are arguing, A or B.

The G Man

Well-Known Member
1- You can arrange cards anyway you want, with bad plays from players and those that come into the game or leave plus others going from one to two hands back and forth, how would you retain your advantage ?
2- Clumping cards ... so what ? You cut the shoe randomly and what happens ? You get a bunch of low cards... big ones are somewhere coming if they aren't behind the cut card. You get a bunch of big cards, you leave the table like you should be doing having won most of your first few hands in a lowering count. This is regular stuff.

What are the big dangers you see ?

BJgenius007

Well-Known Member
Secretarriat said:
Much has been written on the subject and it’s nice that you took a modern and serious look at it.
Obviously, random clumping exists but so does manufactured clumping through shuffling procedures (ASM and/or hand) and it’s not always easy to distinguish between the two. It seems that you now take advantage of ASM manufactured clumping with risk averse plays and tighter spreads.
Three questions
• Regarding ASM do you find casinos use what you describe as “beast” mode only at selective moments like busy Saturdays or do you see it consistently?
• Regarding hand shuffled games do you also find “manufactured” clumping at times? I have seen it at the most extremes like new cards, no wash, basic shuffle and deal. Something is indeed wrong when at high counts players get a Ten on a double down 20-25% of the time when the remaining ten ratio is in the 35-40% range.
• What kind of data can you provide us with? Are you aware of any sim based on “manufactured” clumping (ASM or hand). It seems that so far, no one has proved or disproved anything regarding that old clumping debate.
Three good questions. I will answer one by one in the coming days. I will answer the first question today.

I have three casinos near me. The casinos have different management styles. The point is that all three don't want to lose money but they have different approach to achieve their common goal.

The first one is my favorite. They have the crappy rules but I won the most. I don't have to play cat and mouse with them. The rules are S17, 8D, no surrender. Penetration is 6D/8D to 6.5D/8D. Dealers shuffle fast and no manipulation to clump cards.

The second one uses Beast Mode part time. Actually they restrain themselves from using it unless it is really necessary. It is PA casino so they have to follow state rule: 6D, Late Surrender. Penetration is 4.25D/6D to 4.5D/6D. But once counters come to table, it will drop to 3.25D to 3.5D/6D. The pit boss needs to activate Beast Mode if half shoe did not work. Three years ago, once I sat at the first base and overheard the surveillance team training new member how to access the ASM touch screen and change the setting. The new member is pretty dumb and the old guy himself is not that bright and familiar with the system, either. So both were struggling. This had happened after a counter kept winning Lucky Lady side bet on high counts. He only bet this on high count. After winning \$2,000 QQ of heart. The surveillance team was summoned and came downstairs. Note that these days they can use their smart phones to change the setting five feet away. I had witness surveillance team do this. Again. Not happen often to change setting. So I saw surveillance guy struggled doing his job.

The third one is the most notorious of all. On paper, they offer the best Blackjack. They have PA rules. Penetration is great like 5.25D/6D to even 5.666D/6D. But their low limit ASM tables are set in Beast Mode in full time. That means about 75% of shoes have small card clumps. I see even perfect BS players lose money fast if they follow Basic Strategy religiously at these tables. On their three feature hand-shuffled tables, the casino only use old experienced dealer at these tables. They tilted the cards towards them while shuffling so the dealer can see the ranks of the cards. Then randomly move three or four cards to top or bottom. on shuffle But it is actually not a random act but try to clump cards. Even I tried to converse with them while the dealer shuffle to distract them, their eyes never leave the cards and still do a great job on clumping. I am amazed that some dealers can produce well clumped shoes. Mid 8/9 cards came together. Face cards came together. Ace and small cards came together. Also this only happens when AP are at the table. Note that they can relax and shuffle normally when only ploppies play. Basically this casino can defend all AP on all fronts for the casino's best interest.

Last edited:

Secretarriat

Member
Interesting stuff 007. Looking forward answers to Q2 and Q3.
About these three casinos, did you notice anything special about the wash?

The G Man

Well-Known Member
Yes, during the wash, the dealer was trying to pocket the Aces.