What to look for
  • What to look for

    I find out that my system works better on CSM vs. regular hand shuffled shoe with cut card.

    Blackjack is the only game that has no fixed percentage working against the player. The odds constantly change as cards are dealt out and not replaced. Continuously Shuffled Machines or CSM are being advertise by casino as blackjack but with continuous replacement it is no longer blackjack. The house edge percentage has become fixed which is great because this is exactly what I’m looking to create a lock over the system.

    Some studies have been done in the past in regard to this subject. - This is what these mathematicians concluded from their studies.
    1. The average number of 10s per hand is slightly higher in CMS games than in game that uses a cut card.
    2. The probability of getting a blackjack is slightly higher in CSM games than in a game using a cut card.
    3. The casino's edge over a basic strategy player is slightly less in CSM than in games using a cut card.
    4. The number of hands per hour are about 20% higher.

    But, overall a flat bettor on a CSM game will stand to lose 20% more money because they will be dealt 20% more hands per hour. On the other hand, the Win/Loss ratio is nothing spectacular to say the least. W/L percentages tend to balance out with small fluctuations in the range of +/- 3%. Reasonably stable game.

    I've seen CSMs at the Bellagio for long time. These machines are at the lower limit tables, $10 minimum, although I have seen them occasionally on $25 minimum tables.

    I suspect that all games in the future will be CSM and they are no beatable by card counting.
  • Alex

    Why do you say that the casino edge is less in CSM?

    Charles
  • tuffy88 said:
    Alex

    Why do you say that the casino edge is less in CSM?

    Charles


    Without going into technical details, studies have revealed that in a CSM game which is like playing against a freshly shuffled shoe every hand you'll draw disproportionately more high cards out of the deck. But in a regular shoe game, the cut card introduces more small cards in the last rounds and neutralizes the player-friendly bias from the CSM game.

    Playing in CSM essentially causes every hand to be like the first hand of a shoe. Without having to face the effect of the cut card, so the odds bend slightly toward the player and cutting the house edge by a small percentage. But if you betting flat you will still lose almost the same amount of money becasue now you play more hands per hour. About 70 to 75 hands per hour at a full table of 7 players, or 60-65 for 6 players.
  • alex,

    you are unreal.. you say all the time how you use the count to decide on insurance and several other plays.. with a csm you obviously cant count so that gets rid of all those plays you were supposedly making
  • KY121 said:
    alex,

    you are unreal.. you say all the time how you use the count to decide on insurance and several other plays.. with a csm you obviously cant count so that gets rid of all those plays you were supposedly making


    Use your little colored charts and expect to lose!
  • (24*6) + (24*6) + (4*6) =312
    small.......large.......zip..........Alex what zoo did the mathematicians
    escape from?

    Ray
  • Ray said:
    (24*6) + (24*6) + (4*6) =312
    small.......large.......zip..........Alex what zoo did the mathematicians
    escape from?

    Ray


    Two independent studies were recently done to look at the effect of the CSM on the casino's edge against the basic strategy player. Michael Shackelford (www.thewizardofodds.com) took the first crack at this and published his results in issue #8 of Blackjack Insider Newsletter (www.casino.com/newsletter/blackjack/archive/) and later published his result in an article in Casino Player Magazine (April 2001). This was followed by another study by Dan Catlin that appeared in the 2001 summer issue of The New Chance & Circumstance Magazine.
  • With the possible exception of "Quantum Physics", 1 + 1 =2.....Think
    about it.....That is saying if I put 156, 10 of spades and 156, 5 of hearts
    in a CSM, I'll get more tens. I don't care if Sir Issac Newton said it....it's
    wrong.

    Ray
  • I read the study Alex....This guy assumes a lot......If you control all
    the elements and assumptions you should be able to get anything you
    want. Not to mention that Tamburin is the editor of the publication and
    that don't say a lot.

    Ray
  • Alex... how many decks are in the CSM's?

    How many decks in the shoe games ?

    FWIW...the CSM's here in CT have 4 decks in them. Most of what I hear-say about elsewhere is 5 decks in the CSM.
  • One thing I will say about CSM's, or shuffling after every round from 4 or more decks... The progressions I've been testing get HAMMERED. Shoe play for progressions has been a positive experience in simulated play, and a negative one for CSM's.

    Logically, I would think that both should be nearly the same, but a limited amount of manual play in a simulator, suggests NOT.
  • If CSM's have on average less decks and are seen as starting a new shoe
    each hand, then the player(B/S) should have a better game than the 6-8
    deck shoes. I don't know that he does, but you would think that 4-5 decks
    vs 6-8 would have some effect. However, the effect of card removal may
    not be the advantage. Less decks is more blackjacks but that is just about
    it as I see it.

    Ray
  • Nickels_n_Bullets said:
    One thing I will say about CSM's, or shuffling after every round from 4 or more decks... The progressions I've been testing get HAMMERED. Shoe play for progressions has been a positive experience in simulated play, and a negative one for CSM's.

    Logically, I would think that both should be nearly the same, but a limited amount of manual play in a simulator, suggests NOT.


    They use 4 decks.
    You progression needs some winning streaks to make serious money. I am looking for choppy hands. So, the game seems to be more even and balanced in CSM's
  • I find that the losing streaks are longer and more frequent than in a shoe.
    The winning streaks are shorter, and infrequent.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!