Category: Blackjack

Report on Deadwood Casinos and Blackjack Opportunities

by the Bison
(From Blackjack Forum XXIV #2, Spring 2005)
© Blackjack Forum 2005

Ah, yes, winter in the Black Hills, 10 below one day, 65 above the next. With summer being the main tourist season, winter weekdays are usually quiet in all casinos, with many not opening their blackjack tables until 3 or 4 pm. A couple of smaller casinos just have blackjack tables open on the weekends. If you want to play heads up, come during the day before 2:00 or 3:00 just about anywhere.

Most blackjack games in Deadwood, South Dakota are 6 decks, with a few sprinkles of others to be found. State law caps bets at $100, but most places will let you play as many spots as you want if you’re playing green or black. This is, however, mostly low rollerville, so card counters betting green and black will draw a little attention. Just look like a happy gambler and you can usually spread to your heart’s content.

The downside is that the smaller joints only book $50 max bets. The surveillance departments do not share information on card counters, according to a source. I would be surprised if a number of them actually have a surveillance department. The smaller ones are probably just taping everything in case they need it someday.

This area isn’t really looking for card counters. I think on a quick up and down visit of main street a player with a spotter could pull off several hands of black at the right count, then mosey on to the next one. Interested? Here is a rundown of the games that are worthwhile.

Blackjack Rules, Limits, Penetration, and Hours in Deadwood

Silverado, tables open 24/7, S17, 4.5/6 pen, DAS, Lucky Ladies, $100 max.

Tin Lizzie, 5/6 pen, S17, double action spots, only $50 max. Big spreads no trouble for a couple of shoes, then wander off.

Hickocks and Mineral Palace are 3/4 pen, H17, DAS, 50/100 max respectively.

Celebrity just opened a table, but it’s only open Friday through Sunday. The 4-deck pen is 75%, with S17, DAS, 100 max, with no mid shoe entry. However, I haven’t played this one yet to see if they enforce it.

Gold Dust has 5/6 pen, DAS, H17, and resplit aces on the shoe game.

Double Deck is H17, NoDAS, Double any 2. Penetration varies wildly.

Last but not least in Deadwood blackjack is First Gold Casino, home of the terrible double deck game with fantastic penetration. This double deck blackjack game has Reno rules, but is almost always dealt down to a few cards. No shuffle card. The casino just opened a single deck game with a $100 max.

That’s it for winter in South Dakota! ♠

Redefining the Whale: Las Vegas Casino Comps for Smaller Fish

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XXII #2, Summer 2002)
© Blackjack Forum 2002

OK, let’s look at the positive side of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We all know the negatives. Trying to fly anywhere these days is a royal pain in the butt. Anyone who looks the slightest bit foreign gets shaken down, searched and sometimes held for questioning. The government is now allowing itself to trample all of our civil rights in the name of national security. Then, there are all those dead people in New York…

But still, as Monte Python sings, “Let’s look at the bright side of life!”

Hey, those crazy Arabs who attended flight classes, but skipped out on Landing Gear 101, have inadvertently created some damn good blackjack conditions in Las Vegas… at least for high rollers.

Now I know some of you are thinking… “C’mon, Snyder, September 11 is a day that will live in infamy, a day of great national tragedy, the mass murder of thousands of innocent people… you can’t take this horror and turn it into a blackjack parable! We don’t recall seeing any headlines that read: Thousands Killed, But Great Deals for Gamblers in Vegas!”

Oh, ye of little faith. I don’t make up the news, I just report it. And the fact is: Osama bin Laden, nut case that he is, has significantly changed the face of high stakes blackjack in Las Vegas. Stick with me, gang. There’s a story here…

The economic effects of September 11 on the casino industry have been phenomenal, with various gaming regions reporting both dramatic increases and decreases in business. Las Vegas, for instance, saw its hotel occupancy rate immediately nose-dive from the 97+% average down into the mid-70% levels, resulting in massive layoffs, stalled and canceled construction projects, and an economic recession that has forced the bankruptcy of at least one major Strip casino. The struggling Aladdin, for instance, which had been aggressively pursuing refinancing negotiations throughout the Summer of 2001, put itself on the auction block after September 11.

All of the Las Vegas casinos have been hurting since September 11, but the major Strip casinos have been hardest hit. There is a big difference between the effects on mega-casinos like Caesars or Bellagio, and locals’ joints like Palace Station or Sam’s Town. Unlike the Strip casinos, the locals’ joints didn’t physically lose their customers. The cutbacks and layoffs meant that some of the locals had less money in their pockets, but most of them were still there.

The big joints, on the other hand, depend on tourists who fly in from all over the world. The big joints also cater to a segment of the customer base that the locals’ joints totally ignore: the whales, those players who fly in with six and seven-digit credit lines, or front money, then play baccarat, blackjack, or Pai Gow, for anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000 per hand.

These whales are not a small profit factor for the Strip casinos. As an example of how much these big players can mean to the carpet joints, consider the fact that virtually every major casino on the Strip — except for Bellagio — reported a dramatic reduction in table game win for the month of September, 2001. Why did Bellagio have a great month? Because noted whale of whales Kerry Packer happened to be staying at Bellagio the week of September 11, and he was unable to leave when all international flights were canceled! Bellagio cleaned up on his extended vacation there. Come October, like the rest, Bellagio was hurting too.

One major factor in the disappearance of the whales from Vegas’s VIP rooms was Japan Air Lines’ (JAL) cancellation of all non-stop flights into Las Vegas. JAL had a near monopoly on flights to Vegas from ports in the Far East.

It should also be noted that JAL did not cancel their Vegas flights because the airline was afraid to fly into the US. They did not cancel their flights until it became clear that there were no longer enough passengers to make these flights economically feasible. People all over the world were afraid to fly. The junkets from Tokyo and Hong Kong that typically brought in the highest of the high rollers were no more. The Strip casino VIP rooms were empty.

Not all casinos throughout the US suffered like Las Vegas did. California’s Indian casinos thrived, as gamblers avoided even short domestic flights. Likewise, Detroit’s casinos saw an increase in business as a direct result of the September 11 events. Since nobody actually flew into Detroit to gamble, the flight paranoia meant fewer Detroiters were flying out of the city.

Also, those players in Michigan and Ohio who would normally drive across the Ambassador Bridge to gamble in Canada’s Windsor Casino, stayed to play in Detroit so they wouldn’t have to put up with the security delays and hassles of crossing the Canadian border. Customs was a nightmare.

What many of the big Vegas Strip casinos learned from September 11 was that a small handful of high-end players meant the difference to them between profit and loss. One player betting $10,000 per hand was worth a thousand players betting $10 per hand. An individual player’s result (such as the result of a Kerry Packer) can sometimes change the bottom line result for an entire month!

The big Vegas casinos had to make some quick decisions after September 11. If JAL wasn’t going to fly the whales in, then there was no use even trying to get the “regulars” to come back to the VIP rooms. The regulars were oceans away. What Vegas needed in its VIP rooms was a new group of regulars. Although domestic US flights also had severe cutbacks, and many Americans were frankly afraid to fly, at least the domestic flights still existed, so the Vegas casinos were simply faced with the problem of figuring out how US players could be lured back into the air.

Money talks.

The casino bigwigs looked at the way they marketed their games to the overseas whale market. Whales lived in a world of comps unknown to the average player, including most players who counted themselves as “high rollers.” Whales typically got not only the standard RFB (room, food, beverage) comp, for themselves and their friends and families, but they also got their airfare which in many cases meant the cost of the fuel and the pilots for their private jets.

Then there were gifts: jewelry, watches, shopping trips to designer stores, tickets to concerts, sporting events. There were invitation-only tournaments, sometimes with six-digit prizes and no entry fees or buy-ins. There were the loss “rebates,” running as high as 20%, 30% or more, depending on the player’s credit line and betting level. A loss rebate is just what it sounds like: if the player has a 20% rebate deal, and he loses $500,000, he’ll get 20% back ($100,000) as “walking money” when he leaves. And then there was up-front money itself. Come in with a million bucks, and get an “extra” $20K or more in chips, just for showing up! Just a little incentive.

So, since the overseas whale market was gone, the casinos needed a new class of domestic whale who could be convinced to fly in and take one of the empty VIP seats. There weren’t a whole lot of domestic players in the multi-million-dollar action category, so the casino marketing execs instructed their hosts to go after the high-end US players who were a level down from the whales, the players who normally put up front money or had credit lines from $25,000 to $100,000. These new mini-whales started getting offers from hosts that included all the typical whale bait.

For the first time, a player who came in with a $100,000 credit line got an inkling of what it was like to be a player who came in with a million. For high-end advantage players, Las Vegas has become vastly more advantageous since September 11, 2001. Some of the new comp opportunities have little dollar value, but others are valuable enough to make a mediocre game a highly advantageous game. Let’s look at, and analyze, some of the complimentaries that are being made available to mini-whales these days.

Butler Service Comps for Whales

Unless you’re trying to impress your date, having a six-room suite with fresh flowers and fruit bowls changed daily, and butler service, has no dollar value. Whales have always gotten butler service in their rooms. Now, with a lot of the penthouse suites empty, casinos are starting to give these rooms to lower end players. And what is the difference between butler service and regular room service. Does it really matter if the person who brings the food up to your room is dressed like a butler?

“Whales get real butler service, and that means a lot of things,” says one player who wishes to remain anonymous. “If you call for your breakfast, you can ask to have the pot of coffee brought up right away, and it will be there in a minute. You can ask for a copy of Sports Illustrated or some other magazine, and the butler will pick it up in the gift shop for you and deliver it with your breakfast.

“Also, if it’s real butler service, you won’t ever see a bill. He’ll bring the food, set the table, and disappear. With room service, you can be sure you’re going to sign for whatever you order. When you have butler service, the casino has already decided up front that everything you ask for is comped. Now that some of the smaller fish are getting into the luxury suites that were meant for the whales, casinos are sometimes telling these players they have butler service when they really don’t. If the ‘butler’ asks you to sign for the food, that’s not butler service.

Butlers will pick up your tickets at the box office, press your pants, you name it. And they never hold a hand out for a tip. They’re servants. You leave money for them in an envelope when you leave, and you should be generous.”

Gifts for Whales

Players who get rooms with butlers also typically get gifts, which range from small (flowers, chocolates, wine, champagne, etc.) to medium (jackets, luggage, designer shirts, and the like) to lavish (watches, jewelry, artwork, and more). There is also very little dollar value to most of these gifts, at least from the perspective of the advantage player. A typical gift watch for a mini-whale, which might sell for $2000 in a jewelry store, probably wouldn’t get more than a couple of hundred bucks on Ebay. You might as well just keep the watch.

A High Value Casino Comp: Shopping Trips

Many casinos are now offering shopping trips to their mini-whales. You’ll be set loose in a store with a dollar limit of anywhere from $500 to $15,000, depending on your level of action. The casino picks up the tab, usually by special arrangement with the store(s) involved. The shopping comp, which sounds extremely valuable, is also of limited dollar value in the real world. As explained by one advantage player:

“I got an invitation to a $1000 shopping spree at Neiman Marcus. I thought fantastic, since I would never shop there otherwise — all that overpriced designer crap. I figured I’d go spend my thousand bucks, then return everything later and walk with the cash! Unfortunately, as I discovered, you can’t return anything for cash. Not allowed. You either have to get something you actually want, or maybe a gift for your wife, or something you might be able to sell to one of your friends at a discount… a thousand bucks doesn’t go very far in Neiman Marcus.”

Casino-comped shopping-trip purchases cannot be returned to the store(s) for cash refunds because the casinos negotiate special deals with the stores to pay the wholesale price on a no-refund basis. If you get a $600 silk shirt, you can be sure that the casino is not paying anywhere near $600 to the store. As another player describes it:

“The whole shopping trip comp is to make rich jerks feel important. It’s like ordering a bottle of Dom Perignon from room service. Most of the big casinos list Dom at anywhere from $250 to $350 on their room service menus. They don’t even specify the vintage. I can almost guarantee you’ll get a 1992 bottle, since — as Dom goes — that’s the cheap stuff. You can get that in any liquor store for about $99 a bottle, so I would guess the wholesale price is $50 or less.

“If you’ve got a million-dollar credit line, on the other hand, you’re not going to get the 92 Dom because they figure you probably know the value of it. You’ll get the good stuff. If your credit line is only fifty thousand, they’ll figure you don’t know Dom from Cold Duck. You get the 92. You think they’re comping you a $300 bottle of champagne, but it’s just to make you feel important.

“By putting outrageous prices on room service items, they can also max out their ‘soft comps’ so that they can avoid paying any ‘hard comps’ if you turn out to be a phony. For example, let’s say you put $100K in the cage when you arrive, then you never place a bet of more than $1000, and you rarely even bet this much. They’ve got you down as a $400-500 average bettor. They know that the $100K front money was just for show. You never really gave them a shot at your bankroll.

“When you try to get your airfare, they can point to your $1500 per night suite, and your thousands of dollars in room service charges, and your $2000 shopping trip, and tell you that you don’t have sufficient play to qualify you for $1200 airfare. Airfare is always a hard comp. If they give you $1200, then it’s $1200 cash. There’s no kickback from the airlines.

“For this reason, if you think you’ve got a shot at getting your airfare, skip the Dom and the caviar. In fact, tell them you just want a small regular room because you’re afraid of heights, or you hate elevators. Tell them your wife hates shopping! Minimize the soft comps, and you might see some airfare cash when you leave. Of course, if you are putting a half-million on deposit and playing long hours, with an average bet of a couple thousand, you don’t have to scrimp on anything. You’ll get your airfare and lots more.”

Comped Event Tickets

Says one pro: “When I was playing at a lower level — chunky black action — I used to milk event tickets for money. Fight tickets, concerts, shows — you can sell all of those tickets pretty easily, especially if the event is sold out. And, because the casinos comp so many tickets, it’s hard to find a show that’s not sold out!

“Event tickets are one of the easiest to get soft comps there is, unless it’s some major event that everyone really does want to attend. You simply tell your host to get you as many tickets as he can come up with because you have a whole group of friends in town, and you want to take them all. I used to scalp fight tickets right outside the entry gate. You’ve got to be cool, just wait until someone meets your eyes. There are always people who show up looking for tickets.

“Now that I’m more of a whale, I can’t pull this off so easily. If I’m trying to pass myself off as some millionaire gambler, I can’t be seen hawking tickets like a two-bit hustler. It’s important to uphold the image at all times.

“If I don’t personally know someone who will buy the tickets from me, then I’ll just go to the event myself. But it’s painful sitting in $800 seats with a friend, knowing that some fight fan would have given me $1200 each for the tickets. Especially when I don’t care that much about boxing. But image is everything at this level of play. If I really don’t care about the event — I had tickets to the Madonna concert last year — I’ll give the tickets to a host or a boss or someone in marketing.

“I recently took a buddy to a comped fight — fantastic seats — and found myself sitting next to one of the casino marketing execs and his wife whom I’d met briefly on a previous trip. This was my host’s boss, and he recognized me.

“Turns out he was the person who had scored these tickets, and he knew I would be sitting next to him. Imagine the questions that might be raised if I didn’t show up in those seats, especially if I later told my host how much I enjoyed the fight! Even worse, what if the marketing guy asked whoever did show up in my seat where he’d gotten his tickets, what he’d paid for the seats… When you’re playing blackjack for thousands per hand, you can’t afford to look cheap or phony to anyone.”

Air Fare Casino Comps for Whales

In the new edition of Comp City: A Guide to Free Casino Vacations (Huntington Press, 2001), Max Rubin describes an airfare comp scam that big players have been using for many years, in different variations. According to Max:

“…buy your tickets at the lowest discount available, nonrefundable. Then, at the last minute, buy a first-class round-trip ticket from a travel agent… When you get to your destination, play in two different hotels… After a long play in the hotel you’re not staying in, show your host the expensive tickets and snivel, telling him how much you lost and how you didn’t even stay at his hotel… and pleeeeease help me out here, I’m tapped and my wife’s going to kill me and can you make reservations for my next trip?…

“Then take that same first class ticket to the joint you’re staying at and tell the host there how you paid for all your own lunches, but you’re tapped and cripes, you’d like to come back but if you go home empty, you’re gonna get killed… Be polite, but persistent, and you’ll likely get at least a portion of your high-cost first-class airfare picked up by both places. Then fly home on your budget ticket and cash in the first class beauties.”

I have heard many variations of this airfare scam through the years, with various numbers of first class tickets being purchased and reimbursed by various numbers of casinos. In Burning the Tables in Las Vegas (Huntington Press, 1999), Ian Andersen says that when he visits Las Vegas, he checks into multiple hotels, under different names, for the same trip, and plays at all of them.

He explains: “I buy several sets of open first-class airfares, one for each of my registered monikers. I submit the proper ticket to the VIP host at each joint for a refund. They’ll call up my action on the computer. Assuming my play warrants a refund, they fork over the cash with no questions asked.”

Ian describes how the ploy works for a high roller who “deserves” the airfare comps, as opposed to Max who describes a player who is trying to get more than he “deserves” with the argument that he has lost so much money at the tables. Ian’s method would probably not work so well these days. Purchasing airline tickets under multiple fake names could be dangerous in today’s terrorist-paranoid world.

Likewise, displaying all those fake ID’s, along with the tickets, in Las Vegas hotels, would take a lot of nerve. The level of play required for airfare reimbursement would more often than not require the casino to file a Cash Transaction Report (CTR) with the IRS. This would require the player to show both a picture ID and provide his Social Security Number to the casino. Post September 11, all of these phony ID ploys are much more dangerous, and likely illegal. Max’s whining act is at least not liable for criminal charges.

Ironically, the casinos are well aware that there are big players pulling this airfare scam, and they have known it for many years. In fact, the above quote from the second edition of Comp City, which came out in 2001, is almost identical to what Max wrote in his 1994 first edition.

One casino exec told me, “I don’t care one bit if a player is flying coach but getting us to reimburse first class. Why should I care as long as he gives us the action? We don’t even look at the ticket for our big players. We ask them how much the airfare was, and we give them the cash. In fact, we usually round up. If he says $1850, we’ll just give him an envelope with an even $2000. What do we care if he actually rode in on a motor scooter?”

In Kevin Blackwood’s recent novel, The Counter (Wooden Pagoda Press, 2002), reviewed in the Spring 2002 issue of Blackjack Forum, the author describes a fictional player who must be the ultimate airfare scammer. Since he lives in Vegas, he doesn’t even fly coach to get there. Yet he gets reimbursed for hundreds of round-trip first-class airfares every year by purchasing multiple tickets every week, as if he and his wife are flying in from Cleveland. This character purchases his tickets from a travel agent friend, then returns them to the same agent. He is portrayed as having made half a million dollars in the past two years on phony airfare reimbursements.

This, of course, is pure fantasy. Whereas Ian Andersen describes a workable ploy whereby a big player with multiple IDs might get multiple airfare reimbursements for the same trip under different names, and Max Rubin describes a player who is not such a big player getting multiple reimbursements under his own name, it is highly unlikely that any big player could have enough fake IDs to get multiple reimbursements each week, 50 weeks per year, for years on end.

The number of Las Vegas casinos that take action big enough to qualify a player for reimbursement of two first-class round-trip tickets from Cleveland is small — maybe a dozen or so. And the amount of action required for this reimbursement would be substantial in both hours and average bet.

No player could play that many hours per week, week after week. And any player who did put that many hours on the tables every week, with average bets in the multiple thousands, at the same dozen joints, would become so well- known so fast that his fake names would unravel in no time. There is just too much communication in the industry about the big players.

Most of the big Las Vegas casinos are owned by one of three different groups: The MGM/Mirage group, which owns MGM, Mirage, Bellagio, Golden Nugget, New York New York, and Treasure Island; The Park Place Entertainment Group, which owns Caesars, Paris, Hilton, Flamingo, and Bally’s; and the Mandalay Group, which owns Mandalay Bay, Luxor, Excalibur, Circus Circus, and Monte Carlo. All of these groups have cross-over management and marketing execs.

Even if the casinos were so ignorant that they never noticed the same face continually popping up under different names, what would the airlines think of a travel agent who purchased and returned hundreds of first-class tickets every year, for the same passengers, none of whom actually ever flew anywhere? The concept reeks of a scam. Even if you could find a travel agent willing to do this, it would not be long until the feds were investigating.

In any case, the new “ticketless” travel option that most airlines now offer has made it much easier for players to pick up multiple airfare reimbursements. Some years back, when the scam first came to the casinos’ attention, many casinos started rubber-stamping the airline tickets “PAID,” with their casino name. It took a lot of guts to ask for a second reimbursement at a different casino, when they could see that you were already reimbursed elsewhere.

Now, with so many people purchasing tickets on the Internet, or through 800-numbers, “ticketless” itineraries are simply emailed or faxed to the purchaser. By printing out multiple copies of the itinerary, it doesn’t matter if a casino stamps it “PAID.” You can use a clean copy for the other casino(s) where you play.

One way to judge your whale status at any casino is by how they handle your airfare reimbursement. If they want to see the ticket (or itinerary), and then (usually) photocopy it, and have you sign a receipt for the exact amount paid, you’re not very high on the whale scale. If, on the other hand, the host just hands you an envelope with money in it, no questions asked, you’ve arrived at the top. Of the comps available to the new breed of mini-whale, airfare is the first one with real dollar value. It’s always paid in cash, and the amount can be substantial.

Beyond Comp City…

Most of the above comps are discussed at great length in Max Rubin’s seminal work on the subject, Comp City. Max never gets into some of the whale category comps, as up until recently these have been just too unavailable to all but the chosen few who came to town with millions to lose. So, let’s look beyond Max into some of the comps that casinos are dangling in front of mini-whales today.

Money Comps for Whales

One very valuable comp, formerly available only to whales, is money. That’s right, most of the big casinos will flat-out comp you money. They won’t give it to you in cash, per se, but it has virtually the same value as cash.

Some casinos call these cash comps “bonus” chips, or “promotional” chips, or “casino action” chips. One player explains it like this: “If I go in with $100,000 front money, the casino gives me an extra $2,000 in ‘promotional’ chips as soon as I put the money in the cage. Two thousand bucks right off the top, just that easy. My host told me that I could get this extra $2000 for every $100K I come in with. If I had $500,000 to put in the cage, they’d give me $10,000 extra right off the top!”

Technically, this is just a high-end variation of what many casinos have provided their low-end players for many years. If you’ve got a “fun book” from some local motel in Vegas, there’s quite likely a coupon within it good for a roll of nickels ($2.00) at one of the casinos that’s trying to lure in slot players.

I’m not sure which casino invented the concept of “casino action” chips as a bait for players, but Bob Stupak raised it to an art form back in the 80s at his Vegas World Casino (now the Stratosphere). I can’t remember all the various offers made to players by Vegas World, but typically if a player checked into their hotel for the weekend, he could get back nearly all of his hotel charge in promotional “casino action” chips. These looked more or less like regular gaming chips, except that players were not allowed to cash them in at the cage — they had to be played at the tables.

Also, they did not have the full dollar value of regular casino gaming chips, because they could only be used for one play. If you bet a $5 casino action chip and won the bet, you’d get the $5, but the casino action chip would be taken away. This cut the value of a casino action chip by slightly more than half. What cut it even further was the fact that they could be used on “even money bets only” at the tables. A player who was dealt a blackjack on his casino-action-chip hand, learned to his dismay that he would only be paid even money.

In the 90s, Caesars Palace started using promotional chips to lure in bigger fish. During slow periods, they would send coupons to their high-end customers offering them casino chips valued at $100 up to $500, depending on the player’s prior history. In the mid-90s, MGM began making similar offers. Typically, no play was required, nor was front money necessary, though often the player was required to check in at the hotel in order to get the promotional chip from the cage.

At different casinos today, these promotional chips work differently. At the MGM/Mirage properties, the bonus chips that are given to big players have full-dollar value because you may continue to play the chips until they lose. You still can’t cash in a promotional chip, but you win real chips with them, and if you are there to play, this is real money. I’ve heard a few stories about players who started play with a $500 promo chip, then won numerous bets in succession, and finished playing through the entire weekend at the black chip level without ever having to dig into their own pockets!

It may sound incredible that any player might be provided with thousands of dollars in promo chips, but the fact is, if you are going into a casino with $100,000 front money, the casino will be expecting you to have average bets of a couple of thousand dollars. They’re really just giving you one average bet! And if your average bet is not in this range, then you will be unlikely to get this promotional chip offer in the future. Casinos hate it when players put up front money “for show.” They expect you to gamble with the money you come in with, not just flash it for comps.

Says one pro: “If you are playing at the level where you are putting up substantial front money, and the casinos are giving you bonus chips up front, you really are expected to give them satisfactory action, in both average bet and the number of hours you play. This type of promotional bonus is always arranged by your host, and you’ll know what to expect from them, and what they expect from you, before you arrive. If I go in with $200K, and they bump it up to $205K, that’s a real nice head start on a playing trip.

“Before you get to that level, however, you will probably pass through the lower-end comp, where the casino marketing department just sends you a flyer with a coupon for a $200 promotional chip, or a $500 promotional chip, or whatever they feel your past play warrants. These coupons are always dated, and usually have a very small range of dates when you can pick up your chip from the cashier.

In almost every case, the chip offer is combined with a free room for 2-3 nights during the valid dates, weekends usually excluded. If you don’t want to pass up the opportunity to get the chip, but you really don’t want to play at this casino, then your best bet is to check in, get your chip, play it on a table, then leave the pit without showing them any other play during your stay there.

It’s crazy how in most casinos marketing and pit operations are so disconnected that you won’t even show up in the computer as having played there, provided you never give the boss your player’s card. I know one player who got one of these $500 chip offers from the same casino many months in succession, despite completely burning them on the comped room and giving them no action whatsoever except for the promo chip.”

The Best Casino Comp: Loss Rebates

Another high-end comp being offered to mini-whales, formerly available only to the highest level of whales, is the “loss rebate,” or “discount,” as some casinos call it. The rebate is exactly what it sounds like: if you lose, you will get back a percentage of your loss when you leave.

In Comp City, Max Rubin discusses the concept of “walking money,” and loss rebates are just a high-end variation of this age-old pat-on-the-back-and-handshake, with a little green pressed into the player’s palm. There has long been a tradition in the casino industry that if a player taps out (loses everything he came in with), the casino will give him a hundred bucks or so in order to get him home with something in his pockets (or even to pay for the bus ride!). Walking money was simply a courtesy extended to “good” customers.

The loss rebate offered to whales and mini-whales is a creative take on walking money, except that it is not necessary for the player to go broke, and the amount of the rebate is agreed upon in advance of the player posting his front money.

Various casinos have various rebate programs. Some require the player to put up a specified amount of front money — which might range from $50,000 to $250,000. Some require a specific loss in order to qualify for the rebate, which again might be $50,000, or $100,000, or more. Some have rebate schedules that change as the amount of the loss, or the amount of front money changes.

For instance, you might be offered a 5% rebate if you lose $50,000, a 10% rebate if you lose $100,000, and a 15% rebate if you lose $250,000 or more. The purpose of this graduated rebate is to keep you in action after you’ve lost a significant amount. Those in the whale category, who come to town with millions, have reportedly been offered loss rebates as high as 25% to 30%.

As a card counter, this type of program will likely have you salivating. Imagine the value of having every major loss cut by 10%. In fact, consider the result if you just played a break-even game with the house, with a 10% rebate deal, and you always played until you either won or lost $100,000. Over time, you would win half of your sessions, and lose half, but every time you lost you’d only lose $90,000. On average, you’d be making $5000 every time you played! If you played every weekend, you’d profit more than a quarter million dollars a year, just by playing even with the house!

Unfortunately, this is one of those things that sounds better on paper than it would work in the real world. In Extra Stuff: Gambling Ramblings (Huntington Press, 1991), Peter Griffin discusses and analyzes a number of loss rebate propositions that he had heard of being made to various high level players.

One of these rebates was negotiated by a wealthy sheik who wanted half of his loss returned (a 50% discount on losses!), provided he would bet $10,000 per spin at roulette. Griffin shows that with a rebate of this magnitude, even at a terrible game like double-0 roulette (5.26% house edge), the sheik would clean their clocks to the tune of about $87,000 per trip, if he always played for exactly 234 spins, and also always bet the numbers (35:1 payout), rather than the even money bets (red/black, odd/even, etc.).

It certainly isn’t intuitive to me that the way to make money on this rebate deal would be to bet the long shots, but that’s a different story. What is most important from Griffin’s analysis as far as blackjack players are concerned is that if the sheik were playing the even-money payoff bets, instead of the numbers, then the optimal number of spins for him to have the best edge over the house would be 7, not 234. In fact, if he played more than 28 spins on these even-money bets, then even despite a 50% loss rebate, the edge would swing back to the house.

Griffin further analyzes the optimal play with a loss rebate of only 10%, where the player is making even money bets in a game like craps, where the house has only a 1.4% edge on the pass line. In this case, the optimal number of bets the player should make is only 3, and if he makes more than 11 bets, the overall edge swings back to the house.

This is very enlightening for any player who decides he wants to “milk” loss rebates, with a strategy which assumes that he will win half the time and lose half the time, give or take the flux and a relatively small house edge. If the house has any edge over you at all, it does not take much play on your part before the rebate value has been cut sufficiently to make your continued play a negative expectation.

Of course, the bigger question is, can you play a winning game at the multiple-thousand-dollar level? At this level, where you are definitely one of the biggest players in the house, especially with a loss rebate deal, the scrutiny will be intense.

Can you pull off card counting (or other advantage play) in such circumstances? How much camouflage will you have to lay, both playing camo and betting camo, to keep the bosses smiling and the eye upstairs happy with your play? Rebate deals can have a huge value for advantage players who can actually get away with advantage play, or even break-even play, at that level of action, but few can probably do this for long.

That’s why, although the casino industry is aware of Griffin’s analysis of rebate value, they continue to woo gamblers with discounted losses. They know that with modest rebates, and a small house edge, it doesn’t take them long before they have the best of it. Try playing craps for less than 11 rolls of the dice and see if you qualify for a rebate, regardless of your bet size, your credit line, or how much front money you put in the cage.

Hookers for Whales

Here is another one you won’t find in Comp City: sex. In fact, Max writes: “Contrary to popular belief, hotels do not send hookers to high-rollers’ rooms. Gambling destinations are becoming more and more family-oriented, and a casino, no matter how big the player, would risk losing its gaming license if it supplied gamblers with women.”

Max, this just ain’t true anymore. (Well, it’s true a casino might be risking its license, but it’s not true they wouldn’t risk it!) A host at a major Las Vegas casino recently offered one mini-whale an invitation to a “pajama party” in one of the casino’s penthouse suites.

“He told me I didn’t have to wear pajamas myself, but there would be a good selection of women there who would be in their nighties, and ready to go back to the players’ rooms with them. He said there would be drinks and hors d’oeuvres, and that only their ‘best’ players were invited. ‘Best’ to them means the biggest losers, or expected losers, I guess. I was actually shocked, but I just told him I never paid for sex. He said the women were already paid for, and to just think of it as a comp.”

Whether a casino might really be risking its license on something like this is debatable. Technically, the casino is not offering a sex partner to its customer; the casino host is offering this goodie. Or, you can be sure that would be their argument! You can be sure the casino itself would wash its hands of this matter. “We didn’t know nothin’ about it, judge!” You can also be sure that the host is not pulling money out his own pocket to procure sexual favors for players. One way or another, that host will be reimbursed for his efforts and costs.

Says another big player: “I was invited to a major casino in Mississippi, and my host asked me if I wanted a girl for the weekend. I asked him what he meant, and he said, ‘She’ll eat with you, she’ll sleep with you, she’ll stay with you all weekend. Just make sure you don’t bring your wife.’”

Shades of pre-Castro Cuba! If you were a casino gambler back in the 50s, when Nevada boasted the only legal casinos in the US, many East-coasters chose Havana over Vegas. The flights were cheaper and the casino-hotel accommodations were first rate. Casinos were not family affairs back them. There were no theme parks for the kiddies. In Batista’s casinos, for an extra fifty bucks or so, a hotel guest could get a girl (or boy) companion for the whole weekend. The big players were often comped this luxury.

I can definitely state that there’s no dollar value to this type of comp for advantage players. I’m not even sure if this would be considered a soft comp or a hard comp, pardon the pun(s). But as I doubt this is a cheap comp for the casino, you may want to tell your host that whatever they’re paying the girl, you’d rather have it in promo chips. I mean, we are in this for the money, aren’t we guys?

In any case, the competition for high-end players is obviously getting fierce. The day of the mini-whale is here. ♠

[Note from Arnold Snyder: For more information on casino comps and high rollers (whales), see Deke Castleman’s Whale Hunt in the Desert: Secrets of a Vegas Superhost.]

Ruffled by the Non-Random Shuffle

by Arnold Snyder
(Blackjack Forum Vol. X #1, March 1990)
© Blackjack Forum 1990

[Arnold Snyder is the author of The Blackjack Shuffle Tracker’s Cookbook: How Players Win (and Why They Lose) with Shuffle-Tracking.]

On January 9, 1990, The New York Times published an article about two mathematicians, Persi Diaconis (Harvard University) and Dave Bayer (Columbia University) who have recently completed a computer study of casino-style card shuffling. Their paper proves that it takes seven riffles to “randomize” a single deck of cards. “Random” is defined as the probability that a card in the deck prior to the shuffle will have the same likelihood of occupying any position in the deck after the shuffle.

First of all, I’d like to thank all 173 of my readers who sent me clippings of this article, or any of the edited variations of this article which appeared in newspapers across the country after the story was picked up by the wire services.

Some of these condensed wire service stories have really riled a lot of blackjack players. One Associated Press variation was titled: “Computer Says Blackjack Shuffle Hurts Gamblers.” I’ve been virtually swamped by letters and calls from blackjack players asking, “What can we do?”

Players who read the original New York Times article, to the contrary, were led to believe that the non-random shuffle was not detrimental to the players, but exploitable by them. Diaconis is quoted as saying: “There are people who go to casinos and make money on this. I know people who are out there doing that now.” This has prompted queries from some of my readers asking if this means that alleged non-random shuffle systems like “TARGET” and “BIAS Barometer” might actually work.

At the 1987 Gambling Conference, Dr. John Gwynn and I presented a paper entitled: “Does Casino Blackjack Differ From Computer-Simulated Blackjack?” On page I of our paper, it says: “Indeed, casino shuffles are not random. The most recent work on shuffling indicates that seven riffles are required to randomly arrange a deck of cards.” The reader is referred in our bibliography (p. 15) to a 1986 American Math. Monthly article by Persi Diaconis and D. Aldous, entitled: “Shuffling Cards and Stopping Times.”

After the N.Y. Times article came out, I contacted Diaconis to obtain a copy of the latest study. I would like to thank Persi Diaconis for providing me with the paper so promptly, and for permitting Blackjack Forum to quote from it.

Despite what the newspapers may have led you to believe, the latest Diaconis-Bayer paper, entitled “Trailing the Dovetail Shuffle to Its Lair,” does not make any statement whatsoever regarding casino shuffles “hurting” blackjack players, nor did Diaconis and Bayer produce any data whatsoever on casino blackjack via computer simulation or mathematical analysis. Their study also was confined only to the “riffle” shuffle. The various types of thin strips, quick (thick) strips, partial strips, washes, etc., which casino dealers employ along with riffles, would throw a monkey wrench into Diaconis’ and Bayer’s data.

Limiting their analysis to the riffle shuffle makes their findings more applicable to games like bridge and poker, where players continuously and deliberately put cards into order by suit, rank, sequence, etc., and where stripping is less common. The simple overhand shuffle has the same effect as stripping, but many players consider this shuffle amateurish. By limiting their shuffles to a few riffles, players do preserve sequences of cards, the knowledge of which can be exploited by sophisticated players.

Shuffle-Tracking: How Professional Players Exploit Non-Random Shuffles

I do know blackjack players who exploit non-random shuffles in casinos (in fact, I am one of them). They use various methods of shuffle tracking and card location strategies (based on pre-shuffle sequences). The difficulty of shuffling 6 or 8 decks quickly has always been the Achilles heel of casinos that offer shoe games. Attempting to track these shuffles, however, has been the downfall of many good players.

Tracking is difficult and usually requires either a hidden computer (now illegal in Nevada) or a very skillful player, who has spent a lot of hours studying the theory of tracking and practicing to develop his or her skill. Diaconis’ published comment about “people who go to casinos and make money on this” is not a reference to players using blackjack betting schemes like TARGET.

The Diaconis-Bayer study is concerned primarily with the riffle (dovetail) shuffle’s preservation of pre-shuffle “sequences” of cards. As they put it on p.4 of their paper: “Rising sequences, the basic invariant of riffle shuffling…do not intersect, so each arrangement of a deck of cards in uniquely the union of its rising sequences. Rising sequences record the pack history of a sequence of riffle shuffles, until this information overwhelms the number of cards available to carry it.”

Simply stated, an observer who knew the sequence of the cards prior to the riffle(s) can be assured that these sequences will be retained (though finely chapped up) following a series of riffles. In a casino, very sophisticated shuffle-trackers can make use of such sequential information at the blackjack tables. If only two riffles, for example, have been employed — as is often the case with multiple-deck shoe games — an observant team of players who knew the pre-shuffle sequences could know an ace is likely to land as the first card on one of the next two or three hands.

This is what the most sophisticated blackjack tracking teams have been doing for years to beat the shoe games. This is why the casinos have been continually trying to change their multiple-deck shuffle routines. This, in fact, is why fewer decks protect the casino from expert shuffle-trackers. Fewer decks are much to easier to mix up.

As a matter of fact, since 1983, a sizeable amount of computer research has been done on the non-random shuffle as it I relates specifically to casino blackjack. For the sake of Blackjack Forum readers who are confused about the current attention being focused on the non-random shuffle, and especially how it may affect your potential win rate, I would like to review what we know from past studies, as well as describe a few non-random computer simulations I have recently completed myself.

The History of Research on Non-Random Shuffles

The first important non-random shuffle studies were conducted by Stanford Wong. In his June 1983 Blackjack World newsletter, Wong published the results of a study he had done to search far “streakiness” in blackjack, i.e., wins and losses clumping together in a way that could be exploited by the player.

Wong was testing the validity of one of the theories of the then new TARGET system. This system, touted by Eddie Olsen and Jerry Patterson, claimed that in casino blackjack the player could make money in shoe games by betting on hot (winning) tables and avoiding cold tables. Winning streaks allegedly would tend to continue, as would losing streaks.

Patterson and Olsen were not the first to make such a claim. Charles Einstein, the inventor of the card counting strategy which was later computer optimized by Julian Braun as the Hi-Opt I system, claimed in his second book, Basic Blackjack Betting (GBC, 1980), that blackjack players could use his “rhythm” betting system to make money. In a nutshell, rhythm consisted of raising your bet after a win, and lowering it after a loss. Einstein claimed the system would work because wins in blackjack clumped together in a non-random fashion, as did losses.

Wong’s statistical search for streakiness proved fruitless. In his June 1983 Blackjack World, he reported that his 20-million-hand simulation of the 8-deck Atlantic City game showed that “… there is no support whatsoever for the notion that good hands beget good hands and bad hands beget bad hands.” He also published an extensive chart of his computer derived data.

In his August ’83 Blackjack World, Wong published a letter from one of his readers who had written to complain that Wong’s simulation was not valid for the casino game since “… streak betting works because of faulty shuffling.” So, Wong tried another test, this one without any shuffling whatsoever.

One of the TARGET theories held that when a shoe became favorable for the player, it would tend to remain so through the shuffle, as would an unfavorable shoe. Wong programmed his computer to run through one million 6-deck shoes (44 million hands), in which played cards were reordered exactIy as they would be in a dealer’s discard rack. After dealing out 4.5 decks, however, he did not shuffle at all, but simply placed the unplayed cards on top of the discards, performed one random cut, and began dealing again.

Needless to say, good shoes did not beget good shoes, nor bad, bad. Wong published a chart showing the player win/loss for each shoe compared with the previous shoe’s result. Even after one million shoes, Wong discovered: “Differences between win rates … are so small that they could well be random.”

What was most surprising about Wong’s study, however, was that his flat-betting basic strategy player in this 6-deck Atlantic City game did not lose at the rate of -.5%, as expected, but won at the rate of +.25%! Wong had discovered that the playing and pick-up procedures in casino blackjack did, in fact, re-order the cards in a non-random fashion that favored the player by +.75%!

Wong also published a challenge to his readers in that issue of Blackjack World: “If you still believe in TARGET after reading this article, I invite you to make a card-by-card list of a shuffle that you think generates the 4% edge that Patterson claims (in TARGET promotions), send it to me, and I will redo the study using your shuffle each time.”

None of Wong’s readers took up this challenge, but Peter Griffin was intrigued enough by Wong’s discovery that the reordering of the cards favored the player to ask Wong what would happen if Wong shuffled at regular intervals. So, in his October ’83 Blackjack World, Wong reported the results of another million shoes, shuffling every 50 shoes, in which he came up with a player win rate of +.23 % — not significantly different f rom the +.25% win rate with no shuffling. This result showed that the player-biased order which the play of the hands put the cards into did not require thousands of rounds of play, but in fact, asserted itself rather quickly.

Wong also ran no-shuffle simulations with various numbers of players at the table from I to 5. This did have a significant effect on the players’ win rates. His results showed:

# Players	Win Rate
1	+.25
2	-.10
3	-.27
4	-.28
5	-.33

So, in alI cases, the basic strategy players showed a result with no shuffling that was more advantageous than the random shuffle expectation — though with 5 players, the difference is not significant.

Wong ran one other test, reported in his October ’83 Blackjack World, to determine what was causing the player bias with no shuffling. Comparing the card patterns with random shuffling to those with no shuffling showed significant differences. As Wong reported: “… The difference between well-shuffled cards and unshuffled cards is that if the cards are not shuffled, high cards tend to follow high cards, and low cards tend to follow low cards.”

So, although Wong could find no validity for the theories of TARGET, he did make a few important discoveries. One, the playing procedures in casino blackjack order the cards in a way that favors the players. Two, this player bias appears to be caused by the clumping of high cards with high cards and low cards with low cards. And three, as the number of players at the table increases, the effect diminishes. Unfortunately, Wong did not find any way for the player to exploit this bias in the casinos. The fact remains: All casinos shuffle.

Some questions remained unanswered, however. Although it appeared unlikely that the player could obtain the huge advantages from poor shuffling claimed by the TARGET system, some players still wondered if “poor” shuffling might retain some small amount of the natural player bias caused by the clumping of high cards with high cards, and low with low. If the player observed such clumping in a game in which the dealer seemed particularly sloppy about mixing the cards, could the player expect even a few tenths of a percent advantage over his random basic strategy expectation?

Also, Wong did not test the effects of “runs” of cards which appear when new decks are brought into the game. Dealing and pick-up procedures destroy these runs within one or two shuffles, but can a player exploit clumped cards by seeking out tables in which new decks have just been placed into the shoe?

In 1986, in a series of articles first published by Mason Malmuth in the Experts Blackjack Newsletter, Mason sought to answer some of these questions with his own computer simulation studies. Mason’s articles are currently available in an expanded format as a chapter in his book, Blackjack Essays (1988, Malmuth).

Mason was specifically looking for house and/or player biases caused by runs of cards in new deck order. Mason’s “nonrandom” shuffle consisted of four sloppy riffles and a random cut, with no boxing, stripping, washing, etc.

Mason’s riffles, to be sure, were truly sloppy. His dealer interleaved cards in equally likely runs of 1, 2, 3 or 4 cards. If the cards from one half of the deck finished riffling prior to the cards from the other half, the remainder were dropped on top in a clump, as a human dealer would do. Tests of professional dealers have shown that clumps of 4 cards rarely occur in a riffle, with 65% to 80% of the interleaved cards being single cards.

Furthermore, unlike Wong, who never started with cards in new deck order (ace to king, ace to king, king to ace, king to ace), Mason brought in new decks after every round of play. To Mason’s surprise, 500,000 hands of simulated play with these conditions showed the flat betting, basic strategy player losing at the rate of -1.21%, instead of breaking even, as expected, in this single-deck, Vegas Strip game. Therefore, Mason theorized that if the “runs” of cards were causing the house bias, then by looking at results in which these runs were shorter, he should be able to “create” a player bias.

Unfortunately, his attempts to do this were not highly successful. Although he did manage to find a player advantage of +.39% on one 500,000 hand run, all other attempts failed, producing no result significantly different from the random basic strategy expectation.

Mason concluded that “… these are some of the most confusing results I have ever looked at…” and, “… I was sure, at one time, that I had found a player bias, but now I wonder if I just looked at a statistical fluke…. The idea that a player can walk into a casino and look for certain characteristics that are highly correlated with a player bias in progress is just not an event that I believe can occur with more than a very small probability.”

Commenting on the dealer bias he had managed to create with his “non-random” sloppy riffles, he acknowledged that “… with a skilled professional dealer, this is probably most unlikely… The fact that brand new cards are being used is probably not enough of a reason to leave the game.”

Mason’s study indicated that new deck sequences may tend to affect the player’s expectation, but, alas, his data was inconclusive and was also confined to a single player in a single-deck game. Most of the streak-betting systems being sold for the purpose of exploiting the non-random shuffles tout their effectiveness for multiple-deck games with multiple players at the table.

Mason’s shuffle technique, sloppy as it was, also fairly effectively eliminated most of the new-deck sequences. His analysis showed that all of the decks he “created” contained between 32 and 35 sequences. This means that the deck with the shortest sequences had an average sequence length of 1.49 cards, while those with the longest sequences had an average sequence length of 1.63 cards. Not much difference.

In 1987, at the Seventh International Conference or Gambling and Risk Taking, Dr. John Gwynn, Jr., and I presented a 26-page paper titled: “Does Casino Blackjack Differ From Computer Simulated Black jack?” [Link at the left of this page.] This was the most comprehensive study of the effects of non-random shuffles on casino blackjack done to date.

Our initial plan was to simulate as closely as possible actual casino shuffle routines in both single and multiple-deck games. In order to accomplish this, we enlisted the aid of two other experts on the casino-dealt game. The common casino shuffle routines were provided by author Steve Forte. As stated in our paper: “Mr. Forte at one time owned and operated a professional casino dealing school in Las Vegas after having spent some years as a blackjack dealer, pit boss, and casino manager. In 1986, he personalIy surveyed all of the major casinos in Nevada; at this time he recorded each casino’s standard series of cuts, breaks, riffles, strips, discard procedures, etc., in an effort to devise various ‘shuffle tracking’ and ‘card location’ strategies.”

As a matter of fact, Steve knew more about exploiting non-random shuffles than any player I knew. He had spoken at length with me on various occasions describing some of his discoveries and and techniques. Note, however, that Steve had no faith in the “streak betting” systems which were being sold commercially. Shuffle tracking strategies are more related to card counting than betting systems, insofar as the shuffle-tracker is exploiting specific knowledge of the cards remaining to be dealt. Winning and losing “streaks” play no part in valid shuffle-tracking strategies — which, incidentally, are typically far more difficult to apply than card counting strategies. Tracking strategies often must be applied not only to specific casino shuffle routines but to specific dealers whose actions are sufficiently consistent from shuffle to shuffle.

Anthony Curtis also obtained empirical data from four professional Las Vegas dealers to determine how they broke a deck for a riffle and how well their riffling mixed the cards. His data showed that a professional dealer interleaves a single card 66% of the time, 2 cards 26% of the time, 3 cards 5% of the time, 4 cards 2% of the time, and 5 or more cards less than 1% of the time.

A previous empirical study of professional dealers published by Richard Epstein in his The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic, Second Edition (Academic Press, 1977) showed a more thorough mixture, with single cards interleaving 80% of the time, 2 cards 18% of the time, and 3 or more cards only 2% of the time.

Due to the enormity of the task of programming his computer to simulate all that we had initially hoped to simulate, Dr. Gwynn decided to start with 7 different shuffles in a single-deck game, in order to search for basic significant differences.

One was a random shuffle. One was no shuffle (just a random cut). One simulation used one “perfect riffle,” i.e., the deck was cut precisely into two equal halves, with 100% single-card interleavings. One used two perfect riffles. One used three imperfect riffles (mimicking casino riffles, a la Epstein). One used a riffle-strip-riffle-riffle routine (using the more common “thick” strip used in most Las Vegas casinos). And the last shuffle tested used a riffle-riffle-strip-riffle routine. The deck was dealt out 75%, playing Vegas Strip rules, the players flat betting and using basic strategy.

After 20+ million hands each, these were the player’s expectations per hand:

Shuffle	Expectation
Random	-.11
No shuffle	+.61
1 Perf	-.10
2 Perf	-.19
R-R-R	-.11
R-S-R-R	-.11
R-S-R-R	-.11

The most significant result shows a player expectation with no shuffling that is .72% greater than the player’s expectation with a random shuffle. This result indicates that, as with Wong’s 1983 no-shufle simulation study of the 6-deck Atlantic City game, the pick-up procedures in casino blackjack order the cards in a way that favors the player by about 3/4%.

The only other mathematically significant difference occurred with 2 perfect riffles. In this simulation, the player did .08% worse than with a random shuffle. This is fairly useless information since you’ll never find a casino dealer who employs this bizarre shuffle. All of the “casino style” shuffles showed no significant difference for the basic strategy player from what a totally random shuffle produced.

Thus, although it may be of significance to mathematicians that it takes seven riffles to randomize a single deck, Dr. Gwynn found no significant difference for the basic strategy blackjack player with only 3 imperfect riffles, in a 20+ million hand simulation.

Dr. Gwynn then tested many other theories of the non-random system proponents. Some “significant” differences between shuffles were discovered, for the most part in the non-casino style shuffles — i.e., no shuffle, one perfect riffle, and two perfect riffles. However, with all of the casino style shuffles, no player exploitable differences were found.

There were no significant differences in the frequency of wins, losses, and pushes. The per hand and per unit expectations for hands dealt with positive, negative and zero counts (using the High-Low Count) exhibited no significant differences. No correlations were discovered between the win/loss outcomes of consecutive decks.

In summary, Dr. Gwynn’s extensive computer simulations uncovered virtually nothing exploitable, nor of any significance whatsoever between the completely random shuffle and the imperfect, non-random, casino-style shuffles he mimicked. To be honest, some players were still not satisfied that there might not be something exploitable due to poor shuffling in the casino game.

As one Blackjack Forum reader put it: “Why did you limit your study to single-deck games? TARGET is being sold for multiple-deck games. Why did you limit your study to a single player at the table? Multiple players do have an effect on the clumping of the cards in the discard tray. Dealers in Atlantic City usually use only two riffles, surely imperfect, with no stripping, in order to shuffle 8 decks in a reasonable amount of time.

“Furthermore, you and Gwynn never introduced cards in new deck order. In real casinos, cards always start in new deck order. I would estimate that many shoes are only shuffled about 50 times between new decks. You do see small clumps of cards coming out in sequence right after new decks are brought into the game. What effect does this have? We still don’t known.”

In order to answer some of these questions, I recently ran a series of computer simulations using John Imming’s Real World Casino System Generator.

New Research on Non-Random Shuffles

I started with an 8-deck shoe, 6 decks dealt out. I put 7 players at the table, all flat-betting and playing basic strategy. After 100+ million hands (14.3 million hands per player), and a random shuffle, the players’ expectation was -.4 9%.

To test the effects of no shuffling, I set up the same game, but this time I mimicked Stanford Wong’s simulation of reshuffling once every 50 shoes. I input a thorough shuffle with fine riffling and stripping in order to “randomize” the deck every 50 shoes as Wong had done. My intent was not to mimmick an Atlantic City style shuffle, but to test the effects of not shuffling in a manner similar to Wong’s 1983 6-deck study. I then simulated 10 million hands each with I player, 3 players, 5 players, and 7 players at the table. These were my results, compared to the completely random 100 million hand simulation:

1 player (no shuf): +30%
3 players (no shuf): -.23%
5 players (no shuf): -.31%
7 players (no shuf): -.36%
7 players (random): -.49%

This data is consistent with Wong’s. It shows that the single player’s expectation was .79% greater when no shuffle was used between shoes, but that this advantage diminishes as more players are added to the table. Multiple players at the table appear to have a randomizing effect on the basic strategy player’s expectation.

Still, we would like to know the effect of a “poor” casino style shuffle, with cards in new deck order added at regular intervals. For this test, I introduced new decks every 50 shuffles. The decks were given one “gross wash.” Imming’s gross wash consists of picking up cards in new deck sequences of from I to 15 cards. The “average” run is 8 cards, and the dealer is just as likely to pick up a 15 card run as he is a 6 card run, as he is a 2 card run, etc. This orders the decks in a series of new-deck runs of varying length, but does not otherwise mix the cards.

After the gross wash, which was only performed every 50 shoes when new decks were entered into the game, the only shuffle routine I used between deals was one “gross riffle” and a random cut. A “gross riffle”consists of 50% 2-card drops, 37.5% 3-card drops, 6.25% 4-card drops, and 6.25% 5-card drops. No single card interleavings were performed. When the dealer finished dropping cards from one pack, the remaining cards from the other pack were dropped in a clump, as a human dealer would do, occasionally causing clumps greater than 5 cards.

Each of the eight decks was shuffled separately, then they were stacked on top of each other, with no attempt being made to intermix the various decks into various portions of the shoe. My intent here, again, was not to mimic an actual Atlantic City shuffle, but to search for the effects of a grossly inadequate shuffle, combined with multiple players at the table, with cards in new deck order, poorly washed, being introduced at frequent intervals.

Because I used only one gross riffle and a random cut as the entire shuffle routine between decks, the cards remained in long series of new-deck runs after the gross wash, and consistently retained sequences set up in the discard rack by the previous shoe’s play and pick-up procedures.

After 100 million hands, the flat-betting players’ advantage was -.45%, or .04% better than with a completely random shuffle. This result, though a “visible” difference of .04%, is not mathematically significant due to the fact that there are 7 players at the table. The insignificant difference indicates that even an incredibly poor wash and shuffle, for all practical purposes, randomizes a shoe game.

Some of the player advantage that we know accrues from the clumping of like valued cards may or may not still be present, but we would have to run a simulation of more than 100 million hands to find out. The potential gain, if there is any, would be measurable in hundredths of a percent at most. It’s useless information. Even if you could find a shuffle this poor in a casino game, it would not significantly alter your strategy or your long run expectation.

If you do observe cards coming out of a shoe in short runs and clumps following the introduction of new decks, the effect on your expectation is so minute as to be ignored. Contrary to current “myth,” however, this effect is more likely to be slightly advantageous rather than disadvantageous.

The next simulations I ran were to compare the effects of “streak betting” in the randomly shuffled game with the “gross wash/gross riffle” game. To do this, I set up the program to use a l-to-50 betting spread, doubling the bet after each win, halving the bet after each loss, and ignoring pushes.

A series of six wins caused the bets to raise from 1-2-4-8-16-32-50 units, and vice versa downward for a series of six losses. This betting progression is a very sensitive indicator of the possibilities of streak betting because the player will quickly go from a 1 to a 50 unit bet when any series of bets shows 6 more wins than losses. As long as his wins continue to equal or exceed his losses, he’ll remain near his top bet size. But just as quickly, he’ll go back down to a single unit bet when a similar series of losses exceeds wins.

Running this simulation for 100 million hands in the randomly shuffled game showed a player expectation of -.46%. This difference of +.03%, over the flat bet expectation, is not significant.

I then ran 100 million hands using the same streak betting system in the grossly shuffled game. The result was a player expectation of -.49%, again, no significant difference from the flat bettor’s basic strategy expectation. In both of the streak-betting simulations, the players’ average bets were 8.26 units.

Any Blackjack Forum readers who are concerned about whether or not the “non-random” casino shuffle alters your expectation, or if you are worried that it may take 7 shuffles to “randomize” the cards, note that in these 8-deck A.C. simulations, no significant difference to your expectation can be found, in 100-million-hand tests, between the random shuffle and a shuffle consisting of one gross riffle, even when poorly washed new decks are introduced every 50 shuffles.

It is worth noting here that a good shuffle-tracker could absolutely murder the grossly shuffled games. The Diaconis-Bayer riffle study would accurately identify the cards employed in this game as far from random. Our major concern, however, is that no “weird” order is imposed upon these poorly shuffled cards that alters the non-tracking players’ expectations, or that validates any otherwise futile “streak betting” system.

I will continue to advise my readers to put no faith whatsoever in streak-based systems. There is still no evidence to support such strategies.

PLAYER BY PLAYER SIMULATION RESULTS

(100 Million hands per simulation)
1-7 players, 8 decks, A.C. rules, 75% dealt, basic strategy

Shuffle	Bet Spread	Pl 1	Pl 2	Pl 3	Pl 4	Pl 5	Pl 6	Pl 7	Total
Random	Flat	-.49	-.51	-.53	-.48	-.47	-.47	-.45	-.49
Poorly Washed New Decks Every 50 Shuffles; One Gross Riffle	Flat	-.43	-.43	-.41	-.51	-.48	-.42	-.48	-.45
Random	1-50 (streak)	-.45	-.50	-.45	-.44	-.53	-.42	-.45	-.46
Poorly Washed New Decks Every 50 Shuffles; One Gross Riffle	1-50 (streak)	-.44	-.50	-.47	-.47	-.51	-.54	-.49	-.49

I am currenty working with John Imming to set up a simulation program which can be used to test other non-random and casino-style shuffle effects. To be honest, we do not expect to find anything of value to the player, based on all of the work that has been done thus far searching for player exploitable effects from the non-random shuffle.

If any Blackjack Forum readers have suggestions for tests, shuffles, etc., we would certainly be open to considering any angles we may have overlooked. For now, my advice is to ignore the alleged effects of the non-random shuffle.

Note to players who want to use John Imming’s Real World Casino System Generator to perform their own “nonrandom” simulation tests: You should have no trouble reproducing my results if you input the same variables. Do note that the shuffle routines have limitations which may cause “bizarre” results.

We were baffled for some time by the fact that the basic strategy players’ expectations differ according to seating position, number of players at the table, and deck penetration, when the shuffle consists of only one wash on decks in new deck order. There are numerous reasons for this, however. Consider for instance, that with a single gross wash, both of the third base player’s cards will often be in “sequence” with the dealer’s cards.

Also, some of John Imming’s Real World Casino shuffle routines are theoretically “flawed.” His “washes” (fine and gross) are both more “gross” than you would ever find in a casino. Also, they more closely resemble very thick “strips” than washes.

John Imming has currently been hard at work at a new program which he calls the “Ultimate Blackjack Engine.” I have been testing various functions of this program which vastly expands the “real world” shuffle routines from totally random cuts to more random washes, to High Low stacking routines, more rule variations (including the over/under), etc.

“The Ultimate Blackjack Engine” is still in the testing and development phase, and at this time, John cannot estimate the date of availability, price, or even all of the features. Don’t bother asking! ♠

Beating the Dealer with ESP!

by Arnold Snyder
(From Casino Player December 1993)
© Arnold Snyder 1993

Question from a Player:  Has there ever been a test of psychic abilities with regards to making gambling decisions? How would the casinos protect themselves against psychic gamblers?

I am not psychic myself but I have seen some pretty impressive demonstrations by psychics, especially one very gifted individual with whom I have discussed this idea at some length. I am considering forming a team with this gentleman to take on the casinos of the world, starting in Atlantic City. Would the Atlantic City casinos be allowed to prohibit us from playing for exhibiting psychic abilities under the current regulations?

The Good News: Atlantic City Casinos Cannot Bar Gamblers for Having Psychic Powers

Answer:  Is this a put on? Every few years it seems I get a letter asking about the use mental telepathy, or astrology, or numerology, or some other less than scientific approach, to beating the gaming tables. Though I make no personal claim to psychic talents, I prefer to take these queries at face value, give the questioner the benefit of the doubt, and assume the question is sincere.

The good news is that the Atlantic City casinos are not allowed to bar players for displays of psychic power! In fact, if it’s the possibility of being barred that most distresses you in this proposed venture, then you and your psychic sidekick should just stay put in Atlantic City, and forget the rest of the world.

Casinos in Nevada, and everywhere else that I know of except New Jersey, may bar players from their games pretty much at whim. In New Jersey, the Casino Control Commission requires casinos to allow all players who are playing according to the rules and regulations — provided they are not drunk and disorderly or otherwise a public nuisance — to gamble. The official rules and regulations do not define psychic decision making as a gaming violation.

You can thank the late Ken Uston for making Atlantic City’s gaming tables safe for psychics — though I’m sure he never intended to do this.

Questions to Ask Before You Invest In a Psychic

I have a couple questions for you, however:

One, why would any real psychic want to team up with you, since you admit you possess no such skills? Any player who could predict just the blackjack dealer’s hole card, or the next card to be dealt from the shoe, could quickly bankrupt any table he sat down at. Likewise, if he could predict the next roll of the dice, or where the roulette ball would fall. . . . A psychic doesn’t need a team. Donald Trump is no match for an honest-to-goodness psychic.

Two, don’t you find it just a little bit curious that no casino in the world has provisions for dealing with psychic threats to their coffers? Especially when you consider that no casino could survive if even a small handful of psychics were roaming the pits looking for action.

Wait. . . I know. . . your job in this “psychic team” deal is to supply the money, right? Am I right? (Am I psychic, or what?)

Quite frankly, if there is some self-styled psychic trying to convince you to “invest” in this get-rich-quick scam, wise up. And why didn’t this psychic wonder inform you in advance of my opinion on this matter?  ♠

Professional Players Rate the Las Vegas Casino Surveillance Departments

by the Blackjack Forum Online Moderators
© 2005 Blackjack Forum Online

[Editor’s note: The “inside” information in Las Vegas Casino Surveillance Report Card was compiled by The Vindicator and the Las Vegas Surveillance Mafia, a group of casino surveillance professionals. Other contributors to this report were full-time professional gamblers who have logged thousands of hours in Las Vegas casinos.

Players’ opinions of the game protection competence at any particular casino occasionally split along lines of their specialty or Griffin/C.V.I. status. One player said, “When it comes to spotting card counting, I think every place is too sharp.”

Disclaimer: All of the information in this chart was based on the observations and subjective opinions of individuals whose information may have been incomplete or inaccurate. Bear in mind that conditions within casino surveillance are constantly changing. As this report card was published in 2005, I’m posting this in the Blackjack History section as well as the Surveillance section. Some of the casinos reported on no longer exist and most have gone through many changes since 2005. Is it time to update? — Arnold Snyder]

The Professional Players’ Las Vegas Casino Surveillance Report Card

Griffin Agency	Facial Recog.	Computer Evaluation	Casino	C.V.I.	Overall Rating and Comments
Yes	Yes	Yes	Aladdin	Yes	Will recognize anyone in Griffin pretty fast, and they have clearly read some books.
Yes	No	No	Arizona Charlie’s	Yes	Sweaty rather than smart. Normal action is red to green and bigger action frightens them.
Yes	No	No	Arizona Charlie’s East	Yes	Not too smart, but if they’re letting you play an aggressive count game, it may be a situation you can’t beat. Quick to flyer low rollers.
Yes	Yes	No	Bally’s Las Vegas	Yes	Separate surveillance from Paris. Some sharp and sweaty floormen, pretty lousy surveillance.
No	No	Yes	Barbary Coast	No	Floor reacts to any bet spread. They certainly know what they know.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Bellagio	No	Nice dealers, great restaurants (at Picasso, try the $20 scallop with the potato chip stuck in it), but the dumbest floor person we’ve ever encountered was in their high-limit room. They do have some sharp floor, but there’s the usual percentage of people who could only be there because of juice. Surveillance seems studious and book-learned. They make full use of their Griffin subscription and all the latest equipment but are overly focused on wins. We’re not afraid to play there.
No	No	No	Boardwalk	No	No comments at this time.
No	No	No	Boulder Station	Yes	Floor is frightened, surveillance is helpless. Short sessions easy.
Yes	No	Yes	Caesars	Yes	They can’t distinguish between a hole-card play and a cheating play, we know that for sure. Not as sweaty as it was under the management from AC, but if they get to look at you long enough, they will eventually recognize you.
No	No	No	California	No	Some decent floor, poor surveillance.
Yes	No	No	Cannery	Yes	A good place to play.
No	No	No	Circus Circus	No	Lots of heat, but little fire.
NA	No	No	El Cortez	NA	Marginally better than Circus.
No	No	No	Excalibur	No	Surveillance is helpless, a few floor think they know something.
No	No	No	Fiesta Henderson	No	Paranoid, but helpless. Backing off players for winning.
No	No	No	Fiesta Rancho	No	Mistrusts money.
No	No	No	Fitzgerald’s	No	Have fun!
Yes	No	No	Flamingo LV	Yes	A grab bag. Some floor sweat wins, others have some perspective. They have caught a counter or two in the past. They have MindPlay tables, but they either don’t have the surveillance package or don’t know how to use it.
No	No	No	Four Queens	No	Marginal surveillance, sweaty floor.
			Fremont		Ha ha ha.
No	No	No	Frontier	No	Very mixed reviews.
No	No	No	Gold Coast	No	All the Coast foibles. Land of the paranoids!
No	No	No	Gold Spike	No	Do they have a surveillance department?
No	No	No	Golden Gate	No	A surprisingly pleasant place with a good diner. Thumbs up for Golden Gate.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Golden Nugget	Yes	We agree with Vin: Was once a force to reckon with.
No	No	No	Green Valley Ranch	Yes	This place has some talent on board, which is probably why they don’t sweat action. Recently featured in TV series; game protection is at its best when the television cameras are rolling.
No	Yes	Yes	Hard Rock	Yes	Surveillance has a checklist, and they think they know what they’re doing.
Yes	No	No	Harrah’s LV	No	Mixed reviews. They do use their Griffin subscription.
Yes	No	No	Horseshoe	No	Time to take another look.
No	No	No	Imperial Palace	No	They’re more likely to catch you walking through than actually playing. Some sweaty floor.
No	No	No	Klondike	No	Does anyone play here?
Yes	No	Yes	Lady Luck	No	Playable until you’ve let them record a few wins.
NA	No	No	Las Vegas Club	NA	Floor and surveillance are semi-sharp (El Cortez level).
Yes	No	Yes	LV Hilton	Yes	Player friendly.
No	No	No	Luxor	No	Helpless eye, frightened floor.
No	No	No	Main Street Station	No	Completely mixed reviews from players.
No	No	Yes	Mandalay Bay	No	They can’t watch everyone. They do pay attention to your win/loss record, and a series of wins will trigger a Survey Voice. Security is a bunch of Harry Callahans.
Yes	Yes	Yes	MGM	Yes	Pretty sharp, but big. Surveillance won’t see you without a call from the pit. They do run Survey Voice once your action hits around $500/hand (and will run it more than once), but anything under $1k looks small to them.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Mirage	No	Conscientious, but big. Stay away when not crowded.
No	No	No	Monte Carlo	Yes	Easier lately.
Yes	Yes	Yes	New York New York	Yes	Very mixed reviews from players. Worth another look.
No	No	No	Orleans	Yes	Coast owned. Some smart sweaty floor who know what they know. Surveillance is busy zooming in on girls.
No	No	No	Palace Station	No	Takes green action well. Used to be sharper. Always small minded: they never know what anyone’s doing, but if you’re betting black, you must be a pro.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Palms	Yes	Surveillance watches the high-limit double deck first. They do make use of their Griffin subscription sooner or later, including at CTR time. Day shift relies on sending down “Coach” to intimidate you.
Yes	No	No	Paris	No	Separate surveillance from Bally’s. Very mixed reviews from players. Some sharp floormen.
NA	No	No	Plaza	NA	Some floor sharp, some just sweaty. Okay surveillance.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Rio	No	Big.
No	No	No	Riviera	Yes	Marginally good surveillance. Old mean floor.
No	No	No	Sahara	Yes	Can’t find anyone who feels like playing here.
No	No	No	Sam’s Town	No	There’s a rumor they caught somebody once.
No	No	No	Santa Fe Station	No	Sharp surveillance on swing. Will recognize those in Biometrica.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Stardust	Yes	Reviews wins and will back off on return. Long memory for backoffs. Even some floor are well-informed. We have to say, one of the sharpest in town.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Stratosphere	Yes	What a waste of a spinning restaurant! All they know how to do is sweat action.
No	No	No	Suncoast	No	Coast group. A couple sharp floor who know what they know.
No	No	No	Sunset Station	No	Takes action well in high limit room.
No	No	No	Terrible’s	No	More paranoia than knowledge.
Yes	No	No	Texas Station	Yes	Can be sweaty. Some sharp dealers. We have heard of a guy who got tossed here.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Treasure Island	Yes	Careful and diligent.
No	No	Yes	Tropicana	Yes	More sweaty than knowledgeable.
No	No	No	Tuscany	No	A limited play. Not very knowledgeable, but some good memory on the floor. Paranoid of big action.
Yes	Yes	Yes	Venetian	No	Fancy but sweaty. They definitely pay attention to flyers. They want to know their big players, and prefer their mobster clientele. Wins scare them. Overall, more suspicious than actually knowledgeable or smart.
NA	No	No	Western	NA	Yes, we’ll go anywhere there’s money. Used to be a complete joke, now only a partial joke.
			Westin Casuarina		Anyone??? We do know that it’s possible to get bounced here.
No	No	No	Westward Ho	No	Ha ha ha.
No	No	No	Wild Wild West	No	Surveillance seems to understand its limitations, and will call Stations for big action. ♠