Thursday, October 26, 2017

Phil Ivey Falls Victim to Clueless "Justice System"

So yesterday I saw that Phil Ivey lost his case against the Crockfords Club.
The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards.

Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage...

The club said Mr Ivey had broken its rules by using an "edge-sorting" technique to spot advantageous cards. Mr Ivey had consistently argued that he had merely used a legitimate advantage.

However, Mr Ivey contended that the technique was not a form of cheating because it did not involve dishonesty. He said that he had merely exploited Crockfords' failure to take proper steps to protect itself against a gambler of his ability - and he was therefore entitled to his full winnings, rather than just having his initial £1m stake returned to him.

A little bit over a year ago I would have had no clue what edge sorting was or what "advantaged play" was and just taken the casino's word for it. Today I know a whole lot better and this case should have never gone against Ivey.

The casino's argument in a nutshell is that a player cannot use all available information that is readily observable by any player AND dealer in order to "win". In other words, the Casino argued that the court should find that a Casino is the only party allowed to "stack the deck" in their own favor. This decision shows that the court had no clue about what advantaged play is vs what cheating is.

Lord Hughes saying it was essential that punto banco remained a game of pure chance with neither the casino nor the player being able to beat the randomness of the cards that were dealt.
This statement in and of itself shows that the judge had no clue as to how card based games work and how casinos work. Casinos "beat the randomness" of cards dealt by doing things like changing penetration of shoe games (in Blackjack). They do things like "preferential shuffling". In addition the casino's edge is modified by the rules they impose at a table. In the case of Blackjack, they do shit like pay 6/5 instead of 3/2 for a natural. This increases their edge by over 800%. Casinos use things like continuous shuffling machines (CSM) in order to stop people from counting cards. When one counts cards, one is observing the flow of cards to determine when the advantage has passed from the casino to the player (or vice-versa). This isn't cheating because any and every player (and dealer) can see the cards. Cards aren't modified in any way. no outside device is used. There is no third party relating information. There is no cheating. There is simple observation. That only a few people have the intellect and/or motivation to do it doesn't make any difference. The player is simply using his powers of observation and his knowledge of mathematics to make a more informed play. That is what is meant by "Advantaged players". This information in no way guarantees that a player will win a particular hand or even win a particular session. Just like even though a casino has a mathematical edge, players still "win" in the short term. So back to Phil.

Ivey and his companion who has perhaps the best eyesight on the planet used the physical properties of cards used by casinos in which cards of a certain value (I'm assuming the higher ranked cards) are thicker at the edges than cards of lower rank. Because they could observe this difference during play, they could make bets that corresponded to the likely hood that either they or the dealer would get the "desired" card and therefore win the hand. Edge sorting is not an unknown phenomenon. A casino that fails to secure it's game to guard against such an observation is negligent of protecting it's game. That's not cheating and that's not Phil's problem. The casino's claim that by asking for the deck to be turned a certain way, Phil was cheating. I disagree wholeheartedly. At no time was Phil in control of the deck of cards. The house was. The house should have had a blanket rule that said that the cards will not be turned for any client. They did not do so. Why not? Because the casino was hoping to get Phil for a couple million. It was the casino's greed that caused them to lose to Phil. All the dealer had to say was "no" and that would have been the end of that.

Let's examine one important part of the decision process here:

There was no doubt, she added, that the actions of Ivey and another gambler, Cheung Yin Sun, interfered with the process by which Crockfords played the game of Punto Banco with Ivey. Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, the law firm that represented Crockfords, said: “This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation. The concept of dishonesty is central to a whole range of offences, including fraud.

“For 35 years, juries have been told that defendants will only be guilty if the conduct complained of was dishonest by the standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people, and also that they must have realised that ordinary, honest people would regard their behaviour as dishonest.

How did Phil "interfere" with the process? He made a request that could be denied. Crockfords acceded to his request. How is that interference?

Secondly this "ordinary, honest people" part shouldn't be a part of the proceedings. most "ordinary" people have no idea what the casino edges are. Most ordinary people are happy to be raped at button push by the casino in order to get "comps" or "have fun". Most ordinary people have no idea that many slot machines take nearly 5 cents of every dollar they feed it or how fast that 5 cents adds up. Most ordinary people do not understand the amount a casino with 6/5 or 1:1 Blackjack makes off a player. Ordinary people have no clue and therefore are a bad standard. You know what else an "ordinary person" would do? If they found a slot machine that was miss-programmed and was paying out every 5 spins, they would sit there and spin like mad until someone made them stop. In other words, the ordinary person would take advantage of a broken machine without thinking they were cheating. Why? Because they would say that the casino should have either programmed the machine correctly or turned it off. They would say that they saw and opportunity to win and took it. When was the last time you saw an "ordinary person" complain to a casino when a machine appeared to be paying out too much?

Right.

I understand that casinos need to protect their business interests. I get that. Matter of fact, I want them to protect their business model so that other people lose their money so I can continue to get paid off Blackjack. But they should be required to take responsibility when they fail to secure their games. And this case could have been avoided with a simple "no." This decision could mean that a casino could grant a request to turn cards knowing that if they player wins any large amount of money, they could just deny the payment knowing the court will side with them.

But if the courts are so interested in 'honesty" how about outlawing 6:5 and 1:1 Blackjack?

Friday, September 22, 2017

Stories From The Field

Long time no post. Wanted to share some of the foolishness I have encountered at the tables. First up: Splitting 5s.

I remember when I first started playing Blackjack. All I knew was that 21 won. Get a 17 or better and you can split like pairs and double down. While I split 10s left right and center it never occurred to me to split 5s. Well in late August I ran into someone who it occurred to. I know, I know, other people's play doesn't affect your overall EV. Maybe. Maybe not but when you have a large bet out and the dealer doesn't break because the person who misplayed "took" the cards, the loss is the loss. Personally, I don't mind losing to the house, I DO mind losing to another player. Anyway, here's how it went down:

Count is high. I go for it. I get an 18. Not the best hand, but it's against a dealer 5. Dealer MUST draw regardless of what the hole card is and this is a stand 17 game. The odds are very much in my favor. I see the pair of 5s to my right. "Double down" I say to myself. One card out. Nobody else needs to draw. Next thing I know the 5s are split. First card out is a 3. Then an Ace. OK 1 -1 card out. Count is still high. next card is a 10. Here comes mistake number 2. This MOFO hit a 15 against the dealer 5. Next 10 card is out. Bust. what does the dealer flip? an 8, next draw 7. 20 stand. This was the dealer's hand to lose. Going by basic strategy, the 3 was coming out anyway. The dealer would have gotten the ace for a 6-16 and then the 10 for a 16 and then the next 10 to bust. Instead everyone on the table lost money.

Mind you, the count was still high, so I bet high again only to get a surrender hand with lots of 10s on the table, which effectively ended the player advantage. I left after that. Of all my losses to date, THIS lost has affected me emotionally the worst because it didn't have to happen. So a note to you newbies out there. You might be playing against people trying to make a living playing Blackjack. You may want to experiment and "have fun" with your low bets, but you could be costing people money.

Story 2: Standing on a 4.

Since I am now playing hours at a time I get to observe a lot of people with questionable skills come and go at the tables. I now play at places where their play has a negligible but not totally zero impact on my outcomes so I don't stress about that. A lot of people are playing short games. I get it, I did that for a time too. And no, they aren't Wonging either. This week we had the guy who sat down and bet 25 bucks with his first hand. On a $10 minimum table. Here I was thinking he had serious bankroll and the sense to go with it. He gets dealt an Ace 3. He makes a lot of negative noise, mainly about how he didn't get a Blackjack and then stands. I felt myself beginning to ask him why, but I have learned that what people do with their money is their business.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

The Astounding Fail of Astana

So as usual I'm following the Tour De France and I have never seen such a spectacle as the one that is team, and I use that term VERY LIGHTLY, Astana. Fabio Aru brought the pain and stuck it to Team, and I use the term STRONGLY, Sky and grabbed the Yellow Jersey off Chris Froome. Where were his teammates? somewhere down the mountain having a leisurely ride. Aru was fortunate to not have a flat or any other mechanical.

Then the next day Team [sic] Astana was nowhere to be seen as Aru valiantly defended the yellow. And these are professional cyclists? Today after the finish, one of Astana's riders [sic] was asked about Aru and he looked like a fucking 10 year old kid with a smirk on his face. "Well he couldn't keep my wheel so...". Umm Aru single handedly. Single. Handedly. Put Astana in podium position and this guy was talking like Aru was just being lazy. Aru is beat. He's beat because the other riders for Astana are having a leisurely ride around France, perhaps taking in the sights and flirting with women on the sidelines. Who the fuck knows.What we do know is that they weren't riding up front giving 110% for the man in fucking yellow. At this point everyone but Aru should be sent home, where they can chill and relax on their own time, because clearly they haven't come to France to win any races.

At this point Aru has to do what got him this far: Pretend he's on team Sky and ride (or die) with them wherever they go. All of his victories have come by treating team Sky as his personal lead out train. It's his only hope. It's going to hurt but this is Le Tour. Here's the deal: The race is so close that Sky has to respond to anyone who is within striking distance so all Aru has to do is follow Sky. If the rider is a threat to Froome he is also a threat to Aru, Sky will respond to any threats to Froome so no one important is going free. Follow the Sky train and don't get unhitched.

Friday, June 30, 2017

A Note On Negative Variance and Knowing When To Get Up

So yesterday I got one of my subscription e-mails from a Blackjack website. The contents really bothered me and I think it is something that needs to be discussed like my last post about budding addicts.

First thing:

I thought, no biggie, if I play and hit some neg variance, I can still pull money out of brokerage account as a short term margin loan and just liquidate stock to pay it off so I pay nothing on it.
Now I'm not one to tell anyone how to finance their bankroll, however personally, unless Blackjack is my full time job, I'm NOT taking out a loan of any sort (cash advance, credit card credit loans, etc). I'm not liquidating anything in my retirement funding. I would strongly suggest not even THINKING about this. Personally, unless again you are doing Blackjack for a living, your ONLY source of bankroll finance should be money earned from your 9-5. That's my opinion.

Two:

First shoe I play, TC goes high and I get KILLED. At the end of the shoe I had $800 left so I played some DD and got back up to around $1300.
My motto is:
Play what you can beat and what's paying you.
If I'm getting hammered at a certain table and move to another one where I get my money back (and then some), I'm not leaving the table that's paying me until I'm either bored or it stops paying me. I don't understand why this guy left a good (paying) game to play one that was negative. Which brings us to one major point:
I go back to the 6deck game and it was fresh shoe waiting for me with the same dealer who dealt when the first high count shoe got me. I sit down and was playing table minimum when the count shoots up like crazy. It was about 1.5 decks in and I’m already at a +22 so I’m doing my max bet. With the high count out, I somehow still ended up with neutral upcards and dealer always ended up getting a 10 upcard. I proceed to get cleaned out of all the money I brought with me.
This happened to me the first time I took my counting game to the casino and upped my bets. Of course I was counting incorrectly for the game I was playing (see posts about "this is not blackjack"). But the same thing happened. I've also encountered this in practice play. This is called negative variance. If you hit it, it can clean out your trip bankroll and do it quickly. A high count does not guarantee wins! Let me repeat this:

High counts, and odds in your favor do not guarantee wins

But this gets worse:

At this point there were still 3.5 decks left, so I do my best speed walk to the ATM hoping to get back before someone jumps into my high count. At this point, my card gets DECLINED!!!
Call me superstitious or whatever you want. This too was a bad omen. Negative variance at the table. Declined bank transaction. It's time to leave.
So the only option was to pull the $600 I had from my debit card, fortunately I don’t have to pay ATM fees from my bank. I got back to the table and nobody had sat down yet (asked first to make sure) and bought in to do more max bets. Get cleaned out again, now with no cash available to me and I was forced to leave a RC21 shoe with 3 decks left.
Why did he think he was going to recover? Because he was looking at the RC (~6-7TC) rather than the fact that he was experiencing very bad negative variance. Question: Why did he NOT stay at the table where he was winning? Question: Why did he ignore clear evidence that he was playing a losing game (High count or not, it was a losing game) and NOT LEAVE THE PREMISES?

Personally, I think this guy is headed down the road to gambling addiction. I don't care that he was "only mad that he had to leave a table with a R21". The fact is that the table was EXTREMELY negative. He left a profitable game to play one that was a drain on his bank.

I hope that the people at the website he wrote to discussed this with him. I hope his friends mentioned it to him.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Advice to Budding Gambling Addicts

So the other event that I need to speak upon that happened this weekend.

As I was cashing out my last EV for the evening a young man who was shabbily dressed in an oversize jacket (I know it's cool in casinos but still), shorts, socks and sandals was hanging about looking a bit agitated. I'm always aware of who is around me due to the fact that you have people exiting with rather large sums of cash and I don't want to be the victim of some lookout boy. So if someone looks kinda shifty I change my exit behavior. Trust me, people have been stuck for their bankroll. Anyway, as I cashed out the young man asked me for a buck fifty. I wasn't sure I heard him correctly so I gave him a quizzical look.

I need bus fare. I lost a lot of money.
I told him no and thankfully he didn't press the issue.

Don't let this be you.

There's two things here. 1. Anyone who is under control, knows to separate their gambling money from their "life money". Secondly, you come with what you can spend and you leave if it goes up in smoke. Re-up and come back. Why would one spend one's way home?

I won't say that I've never gone on tilt after a major loss and thrown 20 bucks into a slot machine before exiting. But that was $20 bucks I had to spend and in no way affected my life. Going on tilt (getting emotional) happens. It is imperative that you learn to smooth out the emotions if anything to make sure you don't stress yourself ill.

But the main reason I didn't give him the buck 50 is because there was a large chance that since he saw no problem in spending his get home money that he would spend the buck 50 I gave him on yet another grasp at a losing game. a buck fifty represents 4 slot spins. I knew that, he knew that and I wasn't going to feed his habit.

Gambling addicts are like any other addicts. You don't help them by feeding their problem. Don't give them money. Tough love is the only way out. He's lucky it was warm out and if he was in fact one bus ride away from home, he had a nice long walk to think about his problem. Maybe next time he'll get a metro card that doesn't work in the Casino and he'll have a way home on those [many] losing days.

Don't let this be you. The house has an edge over the vast majority of people. All those bells and lights are there to distract you from this fact. Don't get distracted. Know your limits. Stay in your limits and know when to go home!

Don't Be A Loser. Take Advice

So I need to share an experience I had this weekend. Previously I've discussed my issues with certain electronic Blackjack systems. Not one to be deterred, I've been studying the game and it's quirks. So I was playing over the weekend.

One of the things I do is wait for a "shuffle" which for this game I assume happens when the avatar changes. This way I'm not jumping into a game that may be losing (50-50%). So this guy comes up to play while I'm waiting. After 2 losses he wants to raise his bet to $100. The avatar changed before he could make this bet. Here I started to play, minimum bet. This guy gets mad that I jumped in on "his" game. He actually said:

I was gonna play a hundred but you jumped in
*sigh* So I informed him that my play has no affect on his play and asked him if he read the rules.
I don't need to read no rules
Why would you not be interested in the rules. Rules affect your edge and therefore your expected value? So I bring up the rules, specifically the part about separate decks for each station and told him to read that.
I ain't gotta read no rules
So he took his $100 and went to another station, where from the looks of it, he lost it. I made my EV and cashed out.

Look. There are very few advantaged players out there. Among them, there are very few who are willing to share advice. Now, I don't walk around announcing I'm an AP for obvious reasons, but on occasion I'll give basic advice, and since these particular tables are designed to distract the DP (Disadvantaged Player) I tend to at least get them to look at the rules. So look if someone is giving you advice, it's likely you're doing something that is costing you money. You should listen. Don't be a loser

Friday, May 12, 2017

The GEICO Cuck Commercials

Have you seen them? I'm sure you have. There are two of them thus far. I suppose the first one was testing the waters. The second one went straight into misandry land. Let's recap.

In the first commercial a guy is with some girl. They appear to have been out on a date. He discovers that his battery is dead. Been there. Not a nice feeling. As he is about to say something to the woman, he is shushed.

That's the first problem. Where does a woman get off shushing a grown ass man? In HIS car? Well I assume the latter part.


Bitch you better put that hand down.

That's just the beginning. I wish a chick would shush me. But this is 2017 where manliness is in the direct line of fire. So apparently chick has the GEICO app. This app apparently allows her to call GEICO to arrange for a jump or new battery.

Ummm so this guy is unprepared? Really? OK, not all of us carry a jumper battery in the trunk. But he can't call for a jump? He doesn't have GEICO? He is THAT unprepared? What the fuck?

Not content to cast men in this light, the next GEICO commercial goes for the jugular.

In this commercial a man and his family are on the side of the road with a flat. Now lets assume that the car is not running run-flats that went past the 50 miles recommended by the manufacturer or had a sidewall blowout. This car has a spare.

Once again, this man turns to his wife and is immediately shushed. Again, What. The. Fuck? She then shushes the child in the back. Children get shushed. Grown ass men don't. Period. But it gets worse.

So the wife brings up the GEICO app to declare that they have a flat. A man with tools shows up and changes the flat.

What. The. Fuck? Who are these men who are incapable of changing a flat? No seriously? Forget for a moment that apparently he too, doesn't have the GEICO app to call his damn self. Since when do grown ass men not know how, or have the strength to change a tire?

And what is worse is that this wife gets to call another man to do the stuff her husband is supposed to be able to do.

So lets review all that's wrong with these GEICO commercials:

1) Grown man is shushed by the woman he's with.

2) Man is unprepared for automobile emergencies.

3) Man is apparently incapable of basic automotive fixes.

4) Wife/Girlfriend has another, more capable man on call to do what "her" man should be able to do.

And people wonder why Trump was elected.

Monday, May 8, 2017

BlackJack: Play What You Can Beat

If you listen to podcasts and watch videos and read books you'll come across a line that says:
Never play 6:5 BlackJack
Why?

Because 3:2 Blackjack pays more. The math is easy. you bet $10. Get Blackjack and you get back 25 (original bet plus $15).

In 6:5 Blackjack you bet $10, get Blackjack you get back $22 (original bet plus $12).
I have been known to play a game that pays 2:1 on all pays, including BlackJack. Why? Because it pays.

Question:

Which is the better way to risk your bankroll:

1) A 3:2 game, H17, Resplit Aces, DAS, Surrender, Split any pair,Double any hand No peek, continuous shuffle, 8 decks where you are losing money.

2) a 2:1 game, S17, D 10-11, No Surrender, 1 Deck, continuous shuffle and you are making money. A lot of money. If you answered "1", then you must like giving your bank away. Yes you could think that every time you get Blackjack the casino is "taking" 30% of "your" money. But would you rather the casino take 30% of your BlackJack wins or take your bankroll?

I know what I'd do.

Here's what I've discovered. If a table has HORRIBLE rules, there is usually a reason for it and that reason is the game is very beatable and the casino doesn't want to be wiped out by those who figure it out. A beatable game is a game worth playing. A game that takes your bank is not. Period.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

This Is Not BlackJack

This is a followup to my post about Electronic Table Games. You should probably read that first.

Friday, March 31, 2017

Let's Talk Pushes

A lot of times when you read (or watch) people talk about losing at BlackJack they are talking about actually losing a hand by either breaking or being out drawn by the dealer. But the push can equally be a money drainer if it rears its head often enough.

As I showed in previous postings, pushes happen relatively rarely in the game but there are times where pushes will cost you your bankroll (or session-roll) if it shows up at inopportune times. Card counters know that when the deck is rich in high cards that they are likely to get more 20s and blackjacks. It also means that the dealer is more likely to get more 20s and blackjacks. The problem discussed here is when that happens frequently enough to cost you many high bets.

My method of play involves betting high when there is a higher statistical likelihood of winning and conversely betting low when it is less likely but it is NOT card counting. Due to my method, I have a relatively high exposure to situations in which pushes are likely to happen. This can, and has presented problems on occasions. Let me paraphrase something I read online some months ago about surrender.

I read that the problem with surrender is that obviously if done each and every time, results in situations where you surrender where you would have won. In such a case not only do you lose the half-bet that you "recovered" but you also lost the money you would have won had you not surrendered. If you look at basic strategy for a game that allows late surrender you'll note that they tell you to surrender or HIT. Have you seen a surrender or STAND? No, neither have I. Personally, when I play in places where surrender is not an option, I have chosen to stand where Basic has called for surrender or hit. I'f I'm going to lose the money, I'm going to lose the money. You should do whatever you're comfortable with though. I'd rather lose the bet than the bet and a half.

So yes, wrong surrenders could cost you money. I'm sure mathematicians will point out that long term this may not be the case but most people are not going to be playing billion of hands, so there's that.

Similarly pushes that happen when you have high bets out cost you money because you're betting low when your losing and the high bets are how you overcome these losses, but each time you raise you lose or get pushed and there goes your bankroll.

I haven't quite figured out how to deal with this situation since you have no idea that you're in a push-hole until you've had a number of your high bets nullified. I have noticed though that these high number of pushes occur with numerous long losing streaks (6 or greater). Fortunately I have not seen this occur on consecutive shoe games. Continuous shufflers are a different thing altogether.

So this note is just to make the budding player aware of the roll that pushes have on your gambling income. Yeah, you didn't lose, but if you can't make your high bets (and you'll certainly lose a few high bets), pushes will allow the house to 'nickel and dime" you out of your money.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Stadium BlackJack

So you're a beginner of don't have a lot of bank so you roll into one of those casinos that has a low limit table. Odds are it is some form of stadium Blackjack like "ShaqJack". That is there is a dealer at the head of a number of tables and every player gets the same exact hand. Essentially you get to play "head up" against the dealer. If you know basic strategy you know when someone has done something "foolish" because they'll hit a hand where BS says to stand (classic variability). But there's a very, and I mean VERY, nice thing about stadium Blackjack:

You don't have to bet any money and still be in the game.

Here's the thing about stadium type games: As far as I've seen, so long as there is at least ONE player, the dealer must continue to deal hands. Unlike a standard table where if you don't bet, you don't get cards, in stadium games, the hands you don't bet on are still play out and are subject to the statistics I covered in earlier posts. You do realize what this means right?

If you understand that Blackjack is beaten by betting high (some would say extremely high) when the odds are in your favor, then you know that you bet the table minimum when odds are not in your favor. You don't expect to make money at these times. In stadium BJ the table minimum is effectively $0.

Some people would call this Wonging. I'd call it modified Wonging. Usually one would back count a table (or whatever model your using) and then jump in when the odds are good for a win. The problem IMO is that when you jump into a table you affect the flow of cards (a counter may not care about that, but other methods are definitely affected by a player entering and exiting a game). However in stadium BJ your entering and exiting by way of not betting, in no way affects the card flow since the cards you would have gotten would be played out in that order anyway.

So for example, in my last trip to a casino that has stadium style BJ with $5 minimum, I had an epic 16 hand losing streak. once I hit loss 8 I simply stopped betting and waited for the dealer to lose a hand before entering again. I "saved" $45 in losses. When you are playing with small bank $45 is a lot of money. That 16 hand losing streak broke a lot of other players and they exited the table one after the other as their money evaporated to negative variance.

I'm not telling anyone how to play, but if you are going to play a stadium type game, you may want to consider not betting whenever you are in the situation. Mind you, this is not an invite to ignore the cards. For example, if on a 'non-bet" some player makes a bad basic strategy call that leads to a bust but that hand would have won, you should consider that a dealer bust because your hand would have been unaffected by other player's bad call.

Good luck y'all.

Sunday, February 26, 2017

Video "BlackJack"

Have you played one of these:

Have you noticed that something is "not quite right"? Yes. Well I'm about to show you why this Blackjack game is not really Blackjack. Let me explain. In order to understand what I'm about to point out you need to understand a few things:

Blackjack is not simply the rules of the game. Just because you have "decks" of cards doesn't mean you have Blackjack. You have something that looks like blackjack. Blackjack was made for play using physical cards and NOT a random number generator (RNG). Physical cards have certain properties that cannot be changed. They have a thickness and material that sometimes sticks together. I won't go into dealer errors. Not only that but dealing and shuffling of the deck or shoe happens in a certain way.

For example I've watched a dealer shuffle. Here's how it went:

1)The decks are put into a shuffling machine usually referred to as an autoshuffler.
2)A cut card is placed halfway down the deck.
3)The two halves are separated and reversed front to back.
4)The cut card is then placed about 3/4 the way into the deck (also known as penetration).
5)A card is removed from the top of the deck and "burned".
6)The deck is placed in the shoe and the game begins. Note that once the deck is placed in the shoe there is NO OTHER SHUFFLING happening.

Whatever order the cards have, they have until the next shuffle regardless of how many people are playing or when a person enters and leaves the game.

If you've seen my last set of posts you know that there is a particular statistical pattern that will emerge. This is predictable and can be used to "beat" the game so long as you play perfect basic strategy AND use proper bankroll management. Now lets see what it is that these "Blackjack" machines actually do. Please note that I am about to quote the NYS Gambling laws. This differs from other state laws and therefore may not apply where you live. I strongly advise that you find and read the laws governing video games before you put "real" money down.

§ 5319.35. RNG requirements. The selection of game symbols or production of game outcomes for a gaming device using a RNG shall: (a) be statistically independent;
1093 updated (2/17)
(b) conform to the desired random distribution;
(c) pass various recognized statistical tests; and
(d) be unpredictable.
I wish to draw the reader's attention to items a, c and d. Why? Because actual Blackjack is actually predictable and does not "pass various recognized statistical tests". Tell me, have you seen an actual shoe undergo "statistical tests"? No? I thought not. So already we see that video "Blackjack" is not really Blackjack. but it goes further.
An independent testing laboratory approved by the commission may employ the use of various recognized tests to determine whether or not the random values produced by the random number generator pass the desired confidence level of 99 percent. Such independent testing laboratory may choose the appropriate tests on a case-by-case basis depending on the RNG under review. Such tests may include, without limitation:
(a) chi-square test;
(b) equi-distribution (frequency) test;
(c) gap test;
(d) overlaps test;
(e) poker test;
(f) coupon collector’s test;
(g) permutation test;
(h) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test;
(i) adjacencycriteriontests;
(j) order statistic test;
(k) runs tests (patterns of occurrences should not be recurrent);
(l) interplaycorrelationtest;
(m) serial correlation test potency and degree of serial correlation (outcomes should be independent of the previous game);
(n) tests on subsequences; and
(o) Poisson distribution.
[My underlines]
As I have shown in previous posts, in actual BlackJack not only are patterns of occurrences present but are NOT independent of the previous game (where a "game" is any hand). SO lets review:

Video blackjack such as that shown above is specifically programed to eliminate predictability and outcomes that are dependent upon previous hands. That is NOT Blackjack because Blackjack has these two things. But wait, there is more:

§ 5319.37. Background RNG activity requirement. A RNG shall be cycled continuously in the background between games and during game play at a speed that cannot be timed by the player.
It's bad enough that we're using a RNG (which of course has to happen for there to be a "shuffled" deck but unlike an actual deck in which there is no randomization of ANYTHING until an actual physical shuffle occurs, this RNG is constantly in operation. Think about it. Once a Deck hits a shoe the cards are set until shuffle, According to this document, the RNG which actually "picks" the card is constantly running. That is not Blackjack.

The first seed shall be determined randomly by an uncontrolled event. After every game there shall be a random change in the RNG process (new seed, random timer, delay, etc.) in order to ensure that the RNG does not start at the same value every time. It is permissible not to use a random seed. Nevertheless, a manufacturer shall ensure that multiple games will not synchronize.[My underlines]
. Really? I don't know how many people playing a physical shoe have noticed that a shoe was identical but I've never noticed it but lets assume it does happen. Why is a manufacturer required to make sure that something that is possible cannot happen?
§ 5319.39. Live game correlation. Where a gaming device plays a game that is recognizable to be a simulation of a live casino game, such as poker, blackjack, roulette, etc., the same probabilities associated with the live game shall be evident in the simulated game, unless otherwise denoted on the display or help screen.
This is misleading. Number one "same probabilities" doesn't mean what you think it does why? because as quoted above, the games are specifically programmed to avoid predictability and patterns of occurrences influenced by previous games. Again though I have already shown in previous posts that Blackjack by definition is predictable and hands (games) are directly influenced by the hands that preceded them.

Lets look at some other legal requirements:

§ 5319.45. Software requirements for percentage payout.

(b) Gaming devices that may be affected by player skill shall meet the requirement of this section when using a method of play that will provide the greatest return to the player over a period of continuous play.

"...a method of play...". Unless we're talking side bets and IF we're talking side bets....

(c) RNG. Each RNG shall meet the requirements set forth in section 5319.35 of this Part and the following requirements:

(1) In the game selection process:
(i) each possible permutation or combination of game elements that produces winning or losing game outcomes shall be available for random selection at the initiation of each play, unless otherwise denoted by the game;

Again, we know that in a shuffled deck there is no 'randomization" of card picks. That is, the dealer cannot close his or her eyes and pick a card from anywhere in the shoe. No, the shoe was determined at shuffle. There is nothing else to do but pull the cards. It may seem "random" to the player, but the cards are actually set already. You need to understand this. There should be no randomization going on once a deck is created.

Let us also be clear if you have been playing the game pictured above and have been wondering why, for example, you have these long winning and losing streaks. Or if you have noticed that even though certain events happen at a certain frequency almost *all the time*. Or if you have noticed that playing these differs strongly from what you see at a live dealer, you are not imagining things.

Ask yourself the following: The sign says "random shuffle" but have you EVER been notified of a shuffle? No? Why not? If this is supposed to simulate an actual Blackjack game, you should at least be notified that a shuffle has happened. Oh it's when the avatar changes? Really? Did they tell you that? You do know that at a casino a dealer can rotate out between shuffles right?

Say what about penetration. Do those signs ever tell you about penetration? Did you see anything in the NYS Gambling commission about notifying the player about how much of this "random" deck is being used in each game? No? Any real Blackjack player knows that the penetration has an immense affect on the game. You'll note that the laws only require a random deck. It says NOTHING about how much of the deck has to be used. It says nothing in regards to whether the deck has to be the same penetration after every "shuffle" (whenever that is).

[Update] looking over my data for the past few months and comparing it to physical games, I estimate that the penetration on these game ranges from 1/3 to 1/2. Since I have seen no laws regarding notifying the user of penetration (something you can see at a physical game) or of having a set penetration you should assume that the casino can legally change the penetration (or randomize it) in order to increase the house advantage. This statement assumes that a "shuffle" occurs at every avatar change.

[/update] It's not that these companies cannot program such notices. It's not that they cannot show you a cut card and a burn card. It's that it is to the benefit of the casino that they do not.

Now a note about those "continuous shuffle" Interblock games. If you've played against an physical continuous shuffler and researched the mechanism, you know that a continuous shuffler really isn't. It holds cards in something like a 16 card "slot". As each card is used and returned to the deck, it is randomly assigned to a slot. Obviously "full" slots cannot be used. In other words, although the shuffle is continuous, it is not exactly random. For this reason, even physical continuous shufflers can be mathematically mapped for optimum winning play. However these IB games with continuous shuffles have to adhere to the rules laid down by the laws governing gaming. As shown above they do their best to be random and non-recurring and not influenced by previous hands. Again, something that is impossible to do with physical cards and a physical continuous shuffler.

So to close, I want to be clear. I'm not accusing casinos of cheating. Nor am I accusing the manufacturers of cheating. They are offering games under specific rules and laws. They are using computers that are running specific code. You take that risk as a part of "gambling". My only purpose here is to inform the player of what game they are actually playing. IMO these "blackjack" games are specialized slot machines. It is in your best interest to hit and run these machines and stack short term winnings if you are looking to make real money. It would be better to attack a real physical card game where non-randomness and predictability is part and parcel of the game.