 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Opening comment
editI've changed the {{mergeto}} template on this page to an {{expand}} tag, as I think that this is an article-worthy topic in its own right -- after subjects like mechanisms, algorithms, and effectiveness of shuffling have been dealt with in detail, this should be a fair-sized article in its own right: see the patent literature for more on this. -- The Anome 10:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
A question: does anyone know whether these machines use "true" random number generators, PRNGs, or PRNGs seeded by true RNGs? -- The Anome 11:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Serious Revisions Needed
editThis article does not contain any information about modern shuffling machines used in casinos. They definitely do not operate on the Edward Sammsel design.
"Because standard shuffling techniques are seen as weak" They are? Says who? The Persi Diaconis study is widely known to casino professionals and caused a widespread change in shuffling techniques that curbed the formerly very strong effect of shuffle tracking. I'm not saying shuffle tracking isn't still viable, rather that the modern casino's shuffle procedures have greatly strengthened the random nature of the shuffle.
"and in order to avoid "inside jobs" where employees collaborate with gamblers by performing inadequate shuffles" This is absolutely not the intent of shuffle machines in a casino. In fact there have been cases where the dealer has plugged the just-dealt deck back into the shoe so as to a deal a shoe with a known order of cards. This is much less detectable on a table with a shuffler as there isn't an obviously skipped shuffle procedure. The primary purpose of shuffling machines is to increase the hands per hour and therefore increase the casino's revenue. For example, on a game with 7 players the minimum cards per round is 16 (include the dealer). With a generous 1 deck penetration on a 6 deck shoe that's 260/16 = at most 16 hands dealt per shoe. At 64 hands per hour (a very fast game with 7 players) that's 4 shuffles an hour. If the shuffler reduces the shuffle time form 2 minutes to 30 seconds that's 6 more minutes of dealing time per hour. That's a very large increase in revenue. The shuffler, as an additional benefit, almost effectively eliminates shuffle tracking. Avoiding "inside jobs" is about the smallest benefit the shuffler provides.
"These machines are also used to lessen repetitive motion stress injuries to a dealer." Having dealt for several years I can say this completely untrue. The shuffle motions and posture are very different than those used in dealing and offer a small break to the dealer. Shuffle Machines eliminate most of that break causing an increase in the strain on the left hand RSI (drawing cards out of the shoe) and the right shoulder RSI (delivering cards).
"Batch shufflers are more expensive" Nope. A continuous shuffler is more valuable to the casino as it completely eliminates downtime due to shuffling. It's also significantly more expensive as it tends to be a more complex unit and a newer technology.
"but can avoid the problems associated with some continuous shufflers, whereby the shuffling operation only slowly changes the state of the deck, and new cards may be taken before shuffling has sufficiently randomized the pack, allowing some players to "shuffle track" cards through the shuffling process." Nope. A card is reintroduced to the deck within 7 dealt cards (if the author doesn't need to post references, neither do I). "Shuffle tracking" even a 4 deck Shuffle Master King CSM (it's not actually shuffle tracking, it's just standard card counting) is almost completely worthless as it's the basically the same as counting a 4 deck shoe with a 97% penetration.
"A widely reported, but unpublished, study by Persi Diaconis and Susan Holmes in 2000 resulted in the redesign of many shuffling machines." Nope. Shufflers back around the year 2000 used random ejection technology which has nothing to do with the riffling in Diaconis's study. AddBlue (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Photo
editI added a photo of a computerized shuffling machine, but it is down in that section. Should it be at the top of the article (since there is no other photo, and a photo was requested)? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)