Automatic Card Shufflers

[Wonkawillie77 0]

I have become increasingly distressed over the proliferation of automatic card shufflers in poker rooms across the country. Has no one seen the actual trouble that they cause? ACS were installed to speed up the game and make more rakes for the house by increasing the number hands dealt per hour. And, while this may be true that the actual number of hands dealt per hour may have increased somewhat the problems that they cause far out weight this advantage. The big problem that the ACS machines cause is that they stack the deck. Any mechanical device can and does develop a pattern and even though the button moves and the decks change with each hand I have seen first hand how certain areas of the table will get better hands than the rest of the table. This is based on a full table with nine or ten players. What I have seen is that when the hand is over and the cards are mucked the cards are discarded in a certain way. Logically, the cards mucked first are the worst hands i.e.. 2 4 off-suit, and at the end of the hand, not counting the board, the cards mucked are the best hands i.e.. KK. When the dealer brings all the cards together and "stacks" then to put into the ACS the cards are now stacked with the best cards on top of the deck and the worst cards on the bottom. Now the deck is shuffled in such a manner that the "good" cards tend to stay together and like-wise so do the "bad" cards. Now, the shuffler does move cards randomly but those groups do tend to stay together and move up and down in the deck. Therefore, even though the deal moves with the button, the grouping of "good" cards - moving up and down in the deck - will tend to appear at the same area of the table provided the table remains constant with nine or ten players. Hence, this makes it very unfair when using ACS machines. Plus, like I said earlier, because it is a machine it will develop a "pattern" of shuffling over time. This also adds to the unfairness of ACS machines. I am in no way saying that there are any sinister motives by the casinos to promote any wrong doing whatsoever. They are simply working on a profit margin and are trying to increase the profits produced by providing as many hands and therefore as many rakes per hour that they can. That is the nature of the business and I understand that. However, I do want to play poker at a table where I have to take into consideration the performance of the ACS in addition to the regular thoughts of the game that go through any poker players mind. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have had discussions with poker players all over the country and Canada and many have expressed the same concerns. Some dealers, have also noticed the same thing and wondered if it was just chance or was it the machine. One dealer in particular started to wash the deck before putting it into the ACS and that seemed to help but was then told by his boss to stop because it slowed down the number of hands dealt per hour. One other comment, if these machines are so great why aren't they used in tournaments like the WSOP? I think we all know the answer to that one.

[hblask 1]

Therefore, even though the deal moves with the button, the grouping of "good" cards - moving up and down in the deck - will tend to appear at the same area of the table provided the table remains constant with nine or ten players. Hence, this makes it very unfair when using ACS machines. Plus, like I said earlier, because it is a machine it will develop a "pattern" of shuffling over time. This also adds to the unfairness of ACS machines. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have had discussions with poker players all over the country and Canada and many have expressed the same concerns.

This post makes no sense, and the random shufflers are truly random. Any perception otherwise is based on selective memory and selective observation -- making patterns where none exist. Humans shuffling, on the other hand, are prone to insufficient randomness, but it is close enough for normal purposes.

[madtrix72 0]

This post makes no sense, and the random shufflers are truly random. Any perception otherwise is based on selective memory and selective observation -- making patterns where none exist. Humans shuffling, on the other hand, are prone to insufficient randomness, but it is close enough for normal purposes.[/quoteRandom shufflers are not random. They are governed by computer programs. Complete randomness is impossible in a computer program. It only selects the cardds or group of cards how it is told to. If you have ever watched the show Numb3rs they did an episode where math students got a hold of the algorithms that governed the black jack shufflers and were able to beat the system. Now as to if what the OP is true you would have to conduct experiments and test it. But it doesn't sound totally off base.

[Light 0]

I have also noticed the grouping of cards from shufflers. My thought was that it really depends still on the dealer to mix the cards well after each hand... therefore you do get shifts in where the grouped cards come out...I don't know how much of this I actually believe but I do know that more of the jackpot winners in my casino come off of auto shuffle tables. Not just faster because of the speed either.

[FullMontyM1 0]

I would guess that, to whatever extent this exists in acs, it also exists in shuffling by hand. Probably in slightly different forms. No expert on the subject though. Be wary of outcome-based reasoning.Monty

[MasterLJ 0]

I like how this post supported the hypothesis proposed with fact and meaningful explanations such as, "I clearly noticed a pattern that one side of the table were getting better hands," and my personal favorite, "all mechanical devices develop a pattern." Riveting stuff.

[mtdesmoines 2]

I have become increasingly distressed over the proliferation of automatic card shufflers in poker rooms across the country. Has no one seen the actual trouble that they cause? ACS were installed to speed up the game and make more rakes for the house by increasing the number hands dealt per hour. And, while this may be true that the actual number of hands dealt per hour may have increased somewhat the problems that they cause far out weight this advantage. The big problem that the ACS machines cause is that they stack the deck. Any mechanical device can and does develop a pattern and even though the button moves and the decks change with each hand I have seen first hand how certain areas of the table will get better hands than the rest of the table. This is based on a full table with nine or ten players. What I have seen is that when the hand is over and the cards are mucked the cards are discarded in a certain way. Logically, the cards mucked first are the worst hands i.e.. 2 4 off-suit, and at the end of the hand, not counting the board, the cards mucked are the best hands i.e.. KK. When the dealer brings all the cards together and "stacks" then to put into the ACS the cards are now stacked with the best cards on top of the deck and the worst cards on the bottom. Now the deck is shuffled in such a manner that the "good" cards tend to stay together and like-wise so do the "bad" cards. Now, the shuffler does move cards randomly but those groups do tend to stay together and move up and down in the deck. Therefore, even though the deal moves with the button, the grouping of "good" cards - moving up and down in the deck - will tend to appear at the same area of the table provided the table remains constant with nine or ten players. Hence, this makes it very unfair when using ACS machines. Plus, like I said earlier, because it is a machine it will develop a "pattern" of shuffling over time. This also adds to the unfairness of ACS machines. I am in no way saying that there are any sinister motives by the casinos to promote any wrong doing whatsoever. They are simply working on a profit margin and are trying to increase the profits produced by providing as many hands and therefore as many rakes per hour that they can. That is the nature of the business and I understand that. However, I do want to play poker at a table where I have to take into consideration the performance of the ACS in addition to the regular thoughts of the game that go through any poker players mind. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have had discussions with poker players all over the country and Canada and many have expressed the same concerns. Some dealers, have also noticed the same thing and wondered if it was just chance or was it the machine. One dealer in particular started to wash the deck before putting it into the ACS and that seemed to help but was then told by his boss to stop because it slowed down the number of hands dealt per hour. One other comment, if these machines are so great why aren't they used in tournaments like the WSOP? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Interesting. I, too, have noticed that chip stacks and win distribution around the table are neither equal nor random. There's probably more to this story than meets the eye.

[Wonkawillie77 0]

Thank you to all that repiled to my topic.Believe me, I am no expert, but I do think there is enough evidence to have this issue looked into by the "experts"... whoever they may be.And, when a deck is hand shuffled seven times it is considered to be truely randomly shuffled.Also, I noticed when the deck is "washed" before it is put into the ACS the issue of "deck stacking" is greatly diminished or becomes nonexistant but was banned by a casino I frequent because it takes up too much time. This action of washing also supports my theory of grouping cards when it is not done.Again, thanks to all again for the replys and let's talk some more on the subject.

[reynaldo124 0]

Thank you to all that repiled to my topic.Believe me, I am no expert, but I do think there is enough evidence to have this issue looked into by the "experts"... whoever they may be.And, when a deck is hand shuffled seven times it is considered to be truely randomly shuffled.Also, I noticed when the deck is "washed" before it is put into the ACS the issue of "deck stacking" is greatly diminished or becomes nonexistant but was banned by a casino I frequent because it takes up too much time. This action of washing also supports my theory of grouping cards when it is not done.Again, thanks to all again for the replys and let's talk some more on the subject.

youre pretty much a complete idiot.and even if the "good" cards do get stuck together, the whole table will get K-5's, A-6's, unless you play somewhere smart enough to have an auto shuffler but stupid enough to deal people two cards consequtively.

[Wonkawillie77 0]

youre pretty much a complete idiot.and even if the "good" cards do get stuck together, the whole table will get K-5's, A-6's, unless you play somewhere smart enough to have an auto shuffler but stupid enough to deal people two cards consequtively.

I see no reason to attack me in such a way.I never said anything that was offensive to you or anyone else and your name calling was uncalled for.Anyone who uses name calling as a way to discredit someone else obviously lacks intelligence, was abused by his mommy or watches too much porn.Get a life and chill.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

i have one, and we use it in every home game. nothing bad has happened

[KHSPoker21 0]

Interesting. I, too, have noticed that chip stacks and win distribution around the table are neither equal nor random. There's probably more to this story than meets the eye.

Yeah, usually its the good players that end up with the win AND the chips...crazy stuff.

[The Bellagio Kid 0]

I don't think this guy realizes that having a person or a machine shuffle will never quite solve the problem. There will always be times when a hand shuffle doesn't work or the machine is not shuffling properly. I think the most important thing to do is worry about what you can control and play the game of poker the best you can because if you do that I believe you will have many more winning sessions that simply worrying about the shuffle.Bellagio

Yeah, usually its the good players that end up with the win AND the chips...crazy stuff.