NC1616:
- CSM's are "Continuous Shuffle Machines" and your description is accurate.
- No, you cannot get an advantage over the house with them.

Grifter

The Halifax Casino uses ASM (not CSM) and hand shuffle about 50/50 on the main floor.

Grumpworth

The machines I've seen here only shuffle after the shoe is done. The dealer reloads the old deck and pulls the newly shuffled one. Sometimes the machines break down and I have hit the tables with manual shuffling :D

r those rules for CSM talbes or are they the ones for hand shuffle?

Pechanga Casino here in Temecula California uses mostly 4 Deck CSM's,
and most of the time,
the Cards come out fairly evenly distributed,
with the Dealers Busting about 25% of the time/1 out of every 4 Hands = very common Pattern.

Sounds like a _very_ thin book:

Q: "When is it to your advantage to play CSM games?"

A: "never"

:)

Sorry unclenorm, but I'm with the rat. You can't argue with math.

BTW, I should add that my career is in Computer Science. I've been a university faculty member since 1970. I have written several book chapters. I have written dozens of journal articles. I have given dozens of conference paper presentations.

Not that I see whether I have "written a book or not" has anything to do with the question being asked here...

Here is my take.

A while back, and I am not sure where I followed this, someone on ap.com or someplace discussed the idea that a CSM game is _slightly_ better for a BS player, because of the changes to EoR since the cards just played are re-entered into the "mix" very quickly.

However, they also did the basic math that concluded:

1. CSM had a _slightly_ lower house advantage than the same game, same rules, hand shuffled.

2. Unfortunately, the CSM game goes faster, giving more rounds per hour since there is no down-time for shuffling, and this more than offset the slightly lower house advantage, making this game _worse_ for the pure BS player in a real casino.

The conclusion was "for a given set of rounds" CSM is preferable to a hand-shuffled game, as the house edge is slightly lower than for hand-shuffling. But that comparison is bogus because it compares N rounds in a CSM game to N rounds in a hand-shuffled game. It did not factor in the additional rounds per hour.

Now, for my own discussion:

let's say that we are looking at a 6D shoe with a house advantage of .5%, fairly typical. And lets say that CSM lowers that to .4%. Good or bad? Let's see if we can figure that out.

I want to compare two values:

M * .5 * average bet where M is the number of rounds played in the hand-shuffled game

N * .45 * average bet, where N is the number of rounds played in the CSM game.

My first contention, based on playing the things, is that N is > M. Now rather than make up numbers, I'll ask for input here. Let's choose a hand-shuffled game with a full table of 6 players including us. How many rounds per hour? with 6 players, or 7 hands per round, that is 7 * 2.6 cards on average, or 18.2 cards per round. Figure 4.5 decks played out of 6 (75% penetration) which is 234 cards. Or 12 rounds per shuffle. Now, someone give me a time for a single round, dealing, playing decisions, payoffs. I'd say 60 seconds but will take whatever is suggested. Next, how long to shuffle? Suppose we try 2 minutes? Seems quick but I've never timed them as I don't play a lot of shoe games myself. So figure four shoes per hour, dealing 48 rounds per player. Feel free to adjust those assumptions if you have better data.

So a BS player in the hand-shuffled game will lose 48 * .005 * 10 (assuming $10 flat betting) which costs you $2.40 per hour to play based on the house edge of .5%.

Now on to the CSM game. Those four shuffle breaks won't exist, and we play an extra 8 rounds (again my 2 minutes seems quick to shuffle 8 decks with the usual at least 2-pass stepladder type shuffle plus getting the cards squared, cut, and into the shoe).

So the CSM player plays 56 rounds, which gives a cost of
56 * .0045 * 10 = $2.52.

Based on my numbers above, the CSM game loses 12 cents per hour more than the hand-held game. With several assumptions. First, I doubt the .45 vs .5 house advantage, but I did a quick look and could not find a good number for the lowered house advantage in a CSM game. Perhaps someone here knows. Second, the time to shuffle, cut, etc, seems pretty quick at 2 mins, but I'm not sure.

Based on the above, CSM is worse assuming those numbers are in the right ballpark. If anything changes, (say the shuffle takes 3 mins rather than 2, and I have played 6D games where a 3 pass shuffle was used, or the house advantage for the CSM is .46 rather than .45 for the hand-shuffled game (that sounds more reasonable but I don't know) then the CSM only gets worse.

Comments???

Remember that was based on a $10 average bet. Move up to $100, and it becomes a couple of bucks.

But _never_ fail to remember one important detail. For a card counter, the edge is _thin_. _very_ thin. A few cents here and there and it might be gone completely.

However, for me, as a card counter, CSMs are simply out of the realm of my play. I notice 'em, but have not played one in several years. I've occasionally watched family or friends play, but I no more play CSMs than I play 6:5 crapjack or spanish 21.

I enjoy the "process" immensely, keeping in mind that there is sometimes very little to enjoy on the losing streaks from hell. But the overall "idea" is one I find attractive. The game is fun. The environment is interesting. You meet all kinds of people. And you make money over the long-haul (not a lot in my case, but enough to keep me playing, and one day when I retire, and the MS coast and NO are back in operation, I might "move up" a bit and try to take little more away. :)

Two $10 basic strategy players go to the casino for a 4 hour session.
One plans to play head to head @ 100 hands per hour. The other will
play a full table @ 50 hands an hour. After four hours they both had
losing sessions, but the individual playing head to head lost $200 vs
the full table players $100( in proportion to the number of hands played).
Next day they come back for another 4 hour session and this time they
win. The head to head player won $400 vs $200 for the full table player.
once again a proportional difference in the number of hands played.

The above is an idealistic example, but it does show that the idea that
playing slower as a player positive is bogus. In both cases, the two
players will lose in the long-term, but the short-term can vary quite a
bit. This example has the same relationship as comparing a hand
shuffle game to a CMS game. One is faster than the other....so what.
Playing faster does not alter the HA or yours.

Basic strategy players don't play for the long-term. Why should they when the results is already known? Card counters are the players that try to
play large numbers of hands in the shortest possible times so that the tiny
edge can have a chance to take hold. B/S players don't worry about this
type of thing........................

I hate these "scratchpad" mouse replacements on laptops...

I didn't quite follow your speed discussion. If I am playing a -EV game, then you will never convince me that playing faster is no worse for me than playing a slower game.

hold = house_advantage * average_bet * number_of_rounds_played

The HA and bets won't change, but increasing the number of rounds played is going to kill me.

Your two examples are broken, because based on those two samples, the game is a +EV game and there faster is definitely better, hence why I want to play heads-up myself whenever possible. But the long-term trend for BS is negative. Of course gamblers are gamblers, and they believe in streaks and all the other voodoo concepts that have nothing to do with real BJ games. And, I guess, they are not going to pay attention to the idea that a pure BS player ought to play as slowly as possible to reduce his/her hourly loss...

The point of my previous post was that in the "hold" formula, if you change two numbers at once, as in reducing the HA but increasing the rounds per hour, one needs to be sure he understands whether the entire product got smaller or larger. Just noticing that someone has posted that playing a CSM slightly lowers the house edge can be misleading and let someone conclude "Hey, I don't count, this is my best chance game..." But it isn't...

I don't disagree with your characterization of "gamblers".

But in giving them advice, I still stick to the idea of "slower is better" because their long-term prognosis is losing. And slower games lose less... And I do know quite a few of these types of players that just enjoy the game. And when I pointed out that if they played at a slower table, they'd get the _same_ level of enjoyment, the _same_ level of comps, while losing less money, most understood that and followed that advice...

You are not thinking "statistically".

Which would you rather do if your goal is to "win big" at blackjack, using pure BS?

(1) bet your entire bank on the first hand, with a winning probability of something like 47%?

(2) bet the table min until you win big or bust out?

(2) is a guaranteed way to lose it all. (1) has an almost coin-toss chance of doubling your bank in one round. Playing more hands is simply bad, it makes sure that the house gets closer to the "long run" which is going to drain your bankroll..

I'd like to throw this hat in the ring.

Up here in the NE corner of the US, the two CT Casinos use a 4-deck CSM as opposed to a 6 or 8 deck shoe. My experiences with it are posted here. These CSM's are unusual, in that usually CSM's are 5 or 6 decks.

My observations here are that theres about 32 rounds per hour at a shoe and 48 per hour CSM at full tables of 7+Dealer.

EV * Rounds for the shoe game is 32 * -.0033 or -.0106
EV * Rounds for the 4d CSM is 48 * -.0028 or -.0134 a 26% increase

unclenorm, maybe you could post a hint here on what method you are using to beat CSM's and it would give us an idea. If you have the background that you say, you have to know that CSM's foul-up card counters and any progressive betting system isn't going to get you an edge. Granted you don't want to give away your book, but give us at least the category of the method that you propose in beating CSM's -- is it a counting method? progression? card tracking? You'll never convince anyone here that your method is valid without some more details given the inherent implausibility of it.

the thing is, if you do _not_ count, you don't have to ask Mr. (Dr. actually) $7.50 what to do. What to do is _well_ known. It is called basic strategy, and any deviation only increases your loss rate, nothing more...

Ray:

on the occasions that I play them I use A5 as a quit indicator. When the score reaches -4, I do not play. This sounds rather odd, but its due to the CSM being set to 3/4 deck before calling for cards. There is an actual penetration of 20%. On slower weekdays, you can sometimes get 3-4 hands in b/4 a shuffle. At a full table... only 2 hands. Nonetheless, I find myself sitting out about 1 in 4 hands. Wierd. I figure I'm reducing the HA a little bit... maybe 0.23% instead of 0.28%.

I can use a progression, or play Basic. Usually table min. is $10 or $15, when the shoe games are $25.

At a shoe, I use an A5 quit point of -6 (no play -6 or less), and knock off a substantial chunk of the HA form 0.33% to 0.13%.

So even then the shoe game is better, but sometimes I'd rather play for $10 instead of $25.

I know of a couple that can beat a CSM. "Alienated" (posts on several web sites) has apparently studied the patents, and then an actual CSM machine, to learn / discover flaws in how its shuffle is not completely random. But if you don't know how to do that, these machines are _not_ beatable. A progression has absolutely no chance of beating any BJ game, much less a CSM game. Counting in any form is no good either...

I've been reading Surfteq's posts for some months now and have come to the conclusion that he works for the casino or owns stock in them.

I feel rather sorry for any new person joining the board taking his posts very seriously.


Case in point: "CSM = very easy to beat with a Delayed and Limited Progression."

You will beat the CSM some days but in the long run you will lose.

Hey Skunk...I do NOT work for any Casino,
nor do I own any stock in any Casino...
I am a Day-Trader (not "Investor") and a Casino Bettor,
and the info that I post is what works best for me,
even if it doesn't "work" for anyone else.

The "Acid Test" of the Validity of any Strategy,
is whether or not it WORKS in a Real Casino,
with Real Cards, Real People, and Real Money.

First I must say that I do not mean to attack anyone and that I am always interested in alternate points of view but SSR hits the nail on the head in the previous post. Proof does not consisit of one persons' short term data. A theorm is varified only if the results can be replicated by others.