The Myth of Roulette Dealer Signature and “Section Shooting”

by Steve Forte

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XII #2, June 1992)
© 1992 Blackjack Forum

Roulette Dealer Section Shooting

After first reading “Nevada Roulette” by Laurance Scott (Blackjack Forum Vol. XI #3, September 1991), I was left with a number of puzzling observations. There were so many inaccuracies regarding Nevada roulette versus roulette played elsewhere, modern wheels, dealer job security, the roulette “hold,” system players, countermeasures, hustling for tokes and the overall general conduct of the industry.

The thrust of the article had little to do with the controversial idea of dealer aiming, or “section shooting,” at roulette, but described Scott’s beliefs about supposedly common countermeasures used against winning players. I find it difficult to believe these practices could get past a real expert roulette player more than once, nor would I consider the practices “cheating.”

Laurance Scott is probably more qualified than most to describe the physics, technical factors and methods he believes would be used to section shoot. But aside from the ridiculous “Jane gets cheated” scenario, and the statement: “…the characteristics that make the wheel beatable from the player’s standpoint are the same characteristics which allow experienced dealers to cheat players by ‘aiming’ for sections,” there isn’t even a brief description or possible theory as to how it’s actually done.

It’s been over 15 years since I dealt the wheel and first heard the stories about roulette section shooting. I remember trying to spin the ball the same way from the same starting point and tracking my results. There never was any correlation.

Years later I learned that this “same spin, same starting point, fall into the groove” reasoning was fallacious, and just one of many traps you fall into when you try to convince yourself that this “skill” is possible. I also witnessed my first demonstration of roulette section shooting from a 20-year veteran, and it was far less than convincing. After years of listening to the debate I’ve found that those who support such claims seem to fall into one of three categories:

1. Those who believe roulette section shooting (or steering) is a manipulative skill that can be acquired with practice.
2. Those who contend that if beating the wheel by eye is possible then section shooting must be possible as well.
3. Finally there’s the group that has either heard about it, claim to have seen it done or believe they can do it themselves.

Interestingly, these views are all apparent in the article by Scott, and the subsequent letters submitted to Blackjack Forum by the ex-roulette dealer, the pit boss and Harry McArdle.

For example, in the letter from the former roulette dealer, the dealer asks: “How long would it take to learn to spin a roulette ball exactly four revolutions before dropping?” The implication is that if one can perfect the skill at this level, then one can master the technique for actual casino conditions.

I don’t believe you can rationalize in this way. Even with only one revolution and a super slow rotor, a significant margin of error still exists. As you increase revolutions (eight and nine revolutions are rarely seen, and 10 to 12 are considered very few) and pick up rotor speed, the margin of error will compound quickly eventually wiping out the skill factor.

The former roulette dealer also implies that the “skill” is easily attainable and the methodology is very straightforward. I believe these views to be a gross understatement of the difficulty. There are too many factors that move section shooting past the point of attainable manipulative skills.

Factors Against Dealer Signature or Section Shooting

Consider the capricious nature of the wheel. It is an undeniable fact that the characteristics of a specific wheel that may theoretically make it beatable one day can change the next day, or even the next minute, making the game unbeatable. Even the same dealer, same equipment and similar measurements of ball and rotor speed will yield different results at different times.

I proved this phenomenon to myself some years back after spending 17 days on the road scouting, evaluating conditions, and recording data on hundreds of wheels. Laurance Scott states the same opinion in How to Beat Roulette. He cautions: “…there are inherent factors of the game that cause wheels to phase in and out of predictability,” and: “I have scouted over 300 wheels and only a handful exhibit consistent behavior day after day.”

Many people will argue that roulette dealers after time develop “signatures” to their spins. They argue that roulette dealers “fall into a groove” and that a typical spin tends to produce similar results. I disagree. These same typical spins, produced with the same force (whether deliberately or by habit) will produce different results from day to day! How then could roulette dealers ever possibly develop “signature” spins?

What causes the unpredictable nature of a roulette spin? Basic wear and tear on the wheel. A tilted wheel, high spot(s) on the track, oil or dust on the track, temperature, oil and dust on the ball, and air density are a few of the many forces that represent the real nemesis of roulette computer teams and visual players.

Are the balls perfect spheres? Is the composition (weight) even distributed? Many experts say no and believe that these flaws are responsible for some of the strange results that one commonly encounters. I believe this phenomenon was first mentioned in the Romeo Project, a book that detailed an algorithm for roulette computer play.

Interesting side note: Don’t try to find this book, as every copy was purchased by a serious roulette computer team before it ever reached the public.

Finally, the most obvious factor, and remarkably, the one that many seem to forget: Roulette section shooting or steering would require the perfect correlation of two questionably attainable skills, not one. The roulette dealer would have to aim twice! He would first have to push the rotor to a perfectly pre-determined speed, and then spin the ball with a perfectly pre-determined force.

And the actions would have to be executed naturally to avoid suspicion. Compare these actions to those of professional bowlers, golfers, pool players and similar athletes. These pros only aim once and can literally take as much time as they want to warm up, evaluate conditions, and calculate the effects of their actions.

These are just a few of the many factors that contribute to the unfeasibility of section shooting. I hope to show that section shooting or steering would be infinitely more difficult and complex than most believe.

The ex-roulette dealer also comments, “If a player can clock a moving roulette ball, couldn’t a dealer?” This is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Just look at the mechanics involved.

A section shooting dealer must first push the rotor perfectly to a practiced, pre-determined speed. The ball must then be placed into the track perfectly at a pre-determined starting point. The ball spin would then have to begin with the same practiced initial velocity, carrying the ball perfect around the track a consistent number of revolutions before drop off. These are the physical skills that would have to be perfected. It would not at all be just a matter of interpreting observations of events that had already occurred.

When you read the views of the former roulette dealer and pit boss in Blackjack Forum, it becomes clear that these people really believe what they say is fact. This is not surprising. It seems that after people work in gaming for a short time they fall victim to the “I’m a Pro” Syndrome. After performing the same actions repeatedly, day in and day out, they convince themselves that they “should have” and therefore “must have” control over these actions.

Ask blackjack dealers what they do when players start “running over” the game. Most will change their shuffle in some way. They feel that by adding an extra riffle, an uneven break or perhaps a thinner strip, these changes may help get the game turned around. Then, when it does turn around—and it always does—they take the credit. They convinced themselves they can control the uncontrollable instead of simply realizing that normal fluctuation is alive and well.

In roulette, I believe every wheel dealer has at one time or another probably tried section shooting. Since very few players walk away from the roulette table a winner, the dealer takes the credit. He seems to forget about the 5.26% house advantage.

There are two procedures that effectively stop any possibility of the roulette section shooting or steering myth from becoming a reality. They are the “blind spin,” where the dealer spins the ball without ever glancing into the rotor, and the “last pocket spin,” where the dealer picks the ball out of the winning pocket, waits one revolution and spins from the same position the ball last landed. Both the pit boss and Harry McArdle point to these procedures as proof that roulette section shooting or steering exists.

After all, the logical question is, “Why do you think they have procedures like these?” As it turns out, the procedures are excellent, but the benefits realized by the industry have nothing to do with the prevention of “section shooting.”

They do, however, create good control and uniformity, and minimize the most annoying, ludicrous, unprofessional reality in gaming, which is dealers and pit bosses who sweat every dollar as if it was their own. Roulette dealers of this type visibly and with emotion try to “place” and “aim” the ball as if trying to steer, and mistakenly believe they can affect the outcome.

I also decided to give the accused a chance to tell their side of the story. I asked a close friend and triple sharp, all-around gaming executive, Gary Saul, to help me find the top wheel dealers in Las Vegas. Our research led to a couple of Cuban dealers who worked together in a major casino. This was no surprise, since the best roulette dealers in the world come from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico.

Having spent time in the casinos of the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and having watched the Cuban dealers work here in the states, I can vouch for their incredible mastery of and dedication to the wheel. With a combined 75 years of dealing experience between them, both in Cuba and in the U.S., they were asked for their opinions regarding the recent controversy. They laughed and said, “If we could do that, do you think we’d still be working?”

Their response suggests two very important contradictions to Scott: “Why would anyone develop this skill to cheat players when you could work with outside accomplices to cheat casinos?” and, “If, in fact, this skill was real, you might just have the perfect crime as far as gambling scams go.”

After all is said and done, I will admit, I believe there could be a set of circumstances and extremely hard-to-find conditions that might possibly allow section shooting to exist for extremely limited periods of time. But even attempts under such theoretically perfect conditions seem futile after analysis on a practical level.

Just ask yourself these questions:

There are approximately 300 wheels in Nevada, but how many must be excluded from even the possibility of dealer steering or section shooting due to the procedures in place at the casino (the blind spin, etc.)? How many casinos use the best old-time wheels with the most favorable features? How many of even these old wheels will exhibit manageable rotor decay rate and predictable bounce? Less than thirty, if even that.

Then ask, “How many dealers work in the same casino, with the same equipment, long enough to develop these questionably-attainable “skills”? How many are able to identify the right conditions? How many understand the physics involved and know exactly what it is they are trying to accomplish? A handful? I doubt it.

Finally, how many roulette players are then vulnerable? You can’t cheat any player who bets after the ball is released, skilled or otherwise. You can’t cheat the majority of system players or typical players who spread multiple bets across the layout with no preference for specific numbers or sectors. So who’s left? The occasional player who makes one straight-up bet or a few bets in a specific section? When you do find these roulette players, what happens when other players are betting the other side of the wheel?

If Laurance Scott had stated that he believed a possibility existed that, with exceptionally favorable conditions, an extremely knowledgeable and skilled dealer might theoretically be able to section shoot on a temporary basis, I might have agreed with him.

He did not express these views about roulette section shooting or steering. He stated: “Nevada casinos cheat their roulette customers,” and “…experienced dealers cheat players by aiming for sections of the wheel,” and, “Nevada roulette is really nothing more than a carny game,” and you can “…assume the game is rigged (which it is).” I couldn’t disagree with him more. ♠

Note: Steve Forte is responding to Laurance Scott, author of Professional Roulette Prediction.

Nevada Roulette

by Laurance Scott

(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XI #3, September 1991)
© 1991 Blackjack Forum

Scott is the author of Professional Roulette Prediction: Volume 1 – Basic Methods]

There are two roulette universes that exist on planet earth: Nevada roulette, and roulette as it is normally played throughout the world. Most people who purchase my How to Beat Roulette system seem to be interested in how to beat Nevada roulette, so it is important to understand exactly how the game is different in Nevada than in other parts of the world.

First, a little recap for those of you not familiar with the techniques of beating the game. First you must find a wheel with a predictable ball fall-off point. Second you must be skilled at identifying an exact point within each ball spin at which to make your prediction–generally three to four revolutions before the ball actually drops from the track. Third, you must make your prediction based upon a visual observation of the ball in relation to both the position and velocity of the wheel. Finally, you must place your bets on the layout.

As a general rule, about one out of four wheels throughout the world can be beaten to some degree with edges ranging from 5% to 40%, depending upon the playing conditions. In Nevada roulette, however, you can throw out all of the rules.

I recently spent a week scouting and playing roulette wheels in Reno. It had been a long time since I had visited Nevada for serious play, and on previous occasions I was troubled by the fact that I always seemed to get big edges on paper, but whenever I played the edge diminished. I now realize why this is so: Nevada casinos cheat their roulette customers.

What? Cheat at roulette? How can anybody cheat at roulette? Well, first of all let me qualify the statement by saing that not all Nevada casinos cheat. Some casinos run a fair game. They use modern wheels which tend to yield truly random results. However, other casinos still use older style equipment which is quite beatable. Why would a casino use beatable equipment when modern non-beatable equipment is available?

The answer lies in the fact that the characteristics that make a wheel beatable from a player’s standpoint are the same characteristics which allow experienced dealers to cheat players by “aiming” for sections of the wheel which would cause a player to lose a big bet. On some wheels I observed, an experienced dealer could maintain an edge of up to 30% over the majority of the players at the table.

Why Roulette Dealers Cheat

Job security is, in my opinion, the main reason dealers cheat. Roulette just doesn’t get that much action and in order to survive many casinos require that a dealer produce a hold percentage above 40%. A totally random roulette game will produce a hold percentage of around 25% for the house. A dealer who cannot maintain an increased hold percentage for the casino is history.

The second reason is greed. As long as the casino gets its 40% it will look the other way when the dealer “helps” a confederate or hustles high rollers for tips (as long as it doesn’t get too out of hand).

Any dealer experienced enough to hit sections (it takes about 5 years to learn this skill) and who can produce a 40% hold percentage is worth his or her weight in gold. These dealers have essentially free reign to do whatever they want to.

How Roulette Players are Cheated

First of all, as a player you must realize that the casino’s objective is to wipe you out. Here is how the “average” player is hustled:

Jane buys in for $40 and starts to play her numbers. The dealer looks for any section pattern in the numbers and does one of two things:

1. If Jane is a person the dealer wants to get rid of (i.e. she doesn’t have any more money in her purse), he will do his best to wipe her out as fast as he can by aiming for sections which she hasn’t bet.
2. If Jane is a person he feels will “dig in” for more money, he will start to play the hustle. Jane will lose about $30 and then win. Jane will press up and possibly win again. A feeling of winning and euphoria will be induced. The dealer will also console and encourage Jane when she loses. Jane will then reach into her purse and keep pulling out money until she has lost it all.

As a player, you are continually encouraged to play straight up numbers. Outside bets, corners, streets and splits are discouraged. This is because the dealer cannot aim for randomly distributed bets such as red or black. He will tell you that you can’t win any money by betting the outside. He will belittle and ridicule you for your stupid play. I have even seen some dealers go so far as to move players’ bets from spits to straight up saying, “You can’t make any money that way–why don’t you go for it?”

Make no mistake. Some of these dealers have been in the business for over 30 years and most are real seasoned pros. They are in the business of sizing up a player and then playing them for every nickel they have.

Enter the Roulette Prediction Player

Casinos that cheat do not like system players. They will ridicule you as a system player by telling you that they love your action because system players lose faster. But the fact is that most system players who play a red/black/even/odd system will lose at the normal 5.25% rate rather than the 30% rate preferred by the dealer. System players who play a section system (pre-betting sections trying to follow the dealer) are wiped out in an instant. Their section never comes up.

Prediction players are another matter. The casinos really don’t like prediction players and apparently have had to deal with them for many years. Prediction players wait until the ball has been set in motion before placing a bet on the layout, and most prediction players are of a “dealer signature” variety. Here is how an experienced dealer handles a prediction player:

Sleight of Hand Ball Switch

A prediction player is allowed to get a “read” on the dealer and maybe even win a bet. But the dealer knows exactly when the signature player is correctly reading the dealer’s intent and it is at this instant that a ball switch is made.

It is a sleight of hand move. The new ball is palmed from behind the wheel and switched just before the spin. Why is it sleight of hand? Because most signature players realize that a different ball means a different signature.

The signature player will start to press his bets thinking that nothing has changed. The new ball, however, does not react the same. Generally, the switched ball comes up 1/2 or 1/4 wheel opposite from the predicted section. This is usually enough to wipe out a signature player, and the dealers generally have an arsenal of three balls from which to choose, all of which look identical but have different physical characteristics.

Roulette Wheel Speed Change

Should a prediction player solve the ball switch (which usually can be recognized by the sound of the ball), the next move is the speed change. The dealer will alternate from fast to slow trying to confuse the prediction player. Combined with the ball switch this is a pretty effective maneuver. Only the very best predictive players (e.g., me) can handle varying rotor speeds combined with ball switches.

Wheel Rotation

Should a predictive player keep winning, the next step is to actually pick up the wheel and turn it 90 degrees. This is quite an event, and happened to me twice during my week in Reno. Both times the dealers said they were doing it to change my luck! I hadn’t had a hit for a few spins and I guess they were trying to help me out, even though I had all of the chips in front of me!

Bold-Faced Cheating

When all else fails the dealers actually stick their hand into the wheel during the spin and alter the speed of the wheel. At times this has been done when my back was turned as I was placing bets. Sometimes it has been done when I was looking at the wheel. This is about as close as you can get to out and out cheating, and presents one of the final stages of a player’s welcome at the roulette table.

“Get Your %@#(^*! Out of Here”

The final countermeasure I encountered was having a dealer lean on me and say, “How do you politely tell someone to Get Your Fucking Ass Out of Here?”

How to Counter the Counter Measures

For the first few days in Reno, I fell victim to many of these countermeasures. I’m good, but these 30 year pros are out for blood. I dropped about $800 playing $1 and $5 chips. Every time I would press I would lose. Every time I thought I had narrowed in on an edge I would lose. I was going nuts. I was keeping meticulous wheel statistics and, on paper, could show a whopping edge of 30% significant to the 4th standard deviation.

But then I noticed the ball switch. At first I could tell by the sound and then I confirmed it by looking into the ceiling mirrors (spy vs spy!). I then gathered statistics on each ball/speed combination.

I then realized that sometimes they were altering the wheel speed after I started making my bets. As a result, I made it a point to never turn my back on the wheel and only play the numbers in the first dozen.

What finally worked was a high variance strategy betting 1 to 5 numbers in the first dozen only. For those of you not familiar with high and low variance strategies, a high variance strategy is where you bet fewer numbers, but with higher amounts per number.

You win fewer times and have a higher variance in your bankroll, but given enough trials with the same action your result will be the same as if you were betting more numbers. For example, if you have a 10% edge you will win the same amount of money in the long term by betting $10 on one number as you would by betting $1 on each of 10 numbers.

The high variance strategy served several purposes: 1) It confused the dealers for a while, because they don’t usually see sections bet in this manner. 2) The wins were scattered far enough apart so that the dealers were “lulled” into complacency. 3) I could get the bets down and there was never any question of betting too late. I never pressed after a win. This is usually when conditions are at their worst. Instead, I retreated after wins and slowly let optimum conditions return. Sometimes under optimum conditions I would press after a series of losses.

My end results were several wins which netted me $1200. I came away an overall $400 winner betting $1 to $8 a spin. I played over 800 trials and my edge was about 25%. I stuck with $1 chips because this was the action that was normally tolerated. Did they like it? Not a bit. They sweated every dollar. But there was really nothing they could do except ask me to leave (which they politely did–after I camped out at the table for over 8 hours on my last session).

How to Beat Roulette

I have shown where a polished high variance prediction strategy can beat Nevada roulette. There is really nothing they can do about it except ask you to leave. You can predict the section they aim for when they try to aim. And when they try to go random, you can predict the section anyway! If you can learn to predict, learn to spot the ball switches, and bet in a smooth manner (never turning your back on the dealer) then you can get a substantial edge at Nevada roulette.

I also believe that it may be possible to get an edge at Nevada roulette without any predictive skills just by using an applied psychology approach. First, assume that the game is rigged (which it is) and that an experienced dealer can hit a section with alarming accuracy.

Next, develop an act such that the dealers can’t stand the sight of your face and start pre-betting sections with 25-cent chips. Have a co-conspirator bet $5 chips (at the opportune times) in the opposite section while hiding at the end of the table.

This act won’t last for long but there are many variations which could keep it going maybe for days.

Will Nevada Roulette Continue?

One of the fears professional roulette teams have harbored throughout the years is that all of the opportunities will disappear because of more knowledgeable casinos, modern equipment, etc. However, this just hasn’t been the case–not only in Nevada but throughout the world. Roulette teams generally don’t worry about Nevada because devices are illegal and because casinos seem to sweat every dime. There are easier pickings elsewhere.

Favorable Nevada roulette conditions will apparently last forever. This is because the house is maintaining ideal conditions so that they can exact an edge over unsuspecting players. Nevada roulette is really nothing more than a carny game in the truest sense. However, this is one carny game that an be beaten by knowledgeable and skillful players trained in the art of predictive roulette.  ♠

Disappearing Spots at the Blackjack Table

by Arnold Snyder

(From Card Player, December 14, 1990)
© 1990 Arnold Snyder

A reader wrote to ask me why a popular Nevada casino had six playing spots on its blackjack tables instead of the traditional seven. There are two good reasons for this break with tradition that we’ve been observing in the past few years — fear and ignorance.

The six-spot blackjack table is another one of those foolish countermeasures that wastes playing time, reduces action, and costs the casino money. This is what it boils down to in theory: A casino wants to offer single-deck games because they attract players. Unfortunately, one-deckers also attract card counters, who strike fear into the hearts of casino managers.

What most upsets the pit personnel about one-deck blackjack games is that a card counter might beat these games with a flat bet. Generally, casinos identify card counters by watching for their betting spread. If a player continually ups his bet only after a lot of low cards come out of the deck, he’s told to take a hike. But what if the player is flat betting and winning? Is he a counter or just a lucky punter?

Some years ago, a mathematically inclined gaming equipment supplier realized that if a blackjack table had only six spots instead of seven, then the house would be dealing out 5% fewer cards in a typical full-table, two-rounds-and-shuffle one-deck game. This diminished penetration would cost any card counter at the table a few tenths of a percent in potential advantage. A few tenths of a percent represents a significant reduction in profit potential.

To illustrate this point, I’ve run two separate computer simulations of 20+ million hands each. Both simulate single-deck games with Vegas Strip rules and full tables. The only difference between these simulations is that in one the blackjack table had seven spots, while in the other, the table had six. All of the players are counting cards using the Zen Count (from Blackbelt in Blackjack), and flat-betting one unit on each hand. There are two rounds between shuffles.

So with a full table of flat-betting card counters, the house loses at a rate of about 0.3 percent less with six players at the table than with seven. The third-base player (Player 7 in the 7-spot game, but Player 6 in the 6-spot game), who gets to see the most cards before making his strategy decisions, is taxed one-half percent by the elimination of just one playing spot. Hey, this six-spot table isn’t such a bad idea for casinos after all, is it? I suppose this is what the gaming table supplier argued when he was hustling these new layouts.

But, let’s consider a few side effects of this brilliant new table design. Let’s say a casino has 20 blackjack tables and they switch from seven spots to six spots. At peak business hours, they can now accommodate only 120 customers, instead of the previous 140. Same amount of floor space, same number of tables, pit bosses, dealers, but they’ve lost 20 customers. This effect asserts itself around the clock, even when the house isn’t full — it now requires seven dealers to accommodate 42 customers instead of the previous six. They have effectively cut their operational efficiency by more than 14 percent.

On top of this, every dealer in the house will be dealing a slower game. Why? Because he’ll be spending a greater proportion of his time shuffling. Regardless of whether he’s dealing to six or seven spots, the dealer takes the same amount of time to shuffle the cards. The only difference is that with seven spots, there are 14 player hands between shuffles; with six spots, only 12 hands. That’s 14 percent less action between shuffles.

By installing six-spot tables, a casino is electing to serve significantly fewer customers, with significantly more employees, at a significantly slower rate. Still, you might argue that this drastic reduction in operational efficiency will save money because there are so many card counters these days.

That’s baloney. If you stick a card counter in that cherished third base seat at every table in the house and assume that the other players at the table are your “average” gamblers who lose at the rate of 1.5 percent, the house would still be realizing more profits with seven spots than with six. You have to bear in mind that although the six spot table reduces the card counters’ potential gains by a few tenths of a percent, it does not have any effect on the non-counters. The house will not win a few tenths of a percent more from each of the non-counters. This countermeasure, which only affects the few card counters that may be playing in the casino at any given time, is heavily taxing the casino’s efficiency at generating action with every other blackjack customer who plays there—around the clock, 365 days a year.

The six-spot blackjack table is one of the most costly countermeasures a casino can impose. If you get your kicks from laughing at ignorant house policies, look for casinos that put six-spot tables on multiple-deck games. [Since this article was written, the MGM Grand in Las Vegas has taken top stupidity honors!] Since shoe games are dealt to a cut card, and not any specified number of rounds, the number of spots at the table has no effect whatsoever on card counters. Casinos with multiple-deck six-spot tables are simply engaging in financial masochism.

And there are the casinos with single-deck, seven-spot tables whose dealers only deal one round between shuffles These casinos ought to conduct a survey with a stopwatch and calculator to estimate how much action is lost per table per hour because the dealers are spending twice as much time per player hand shuffling the cards. They should then figure out how many card counters would have to be feasting on those tables, if two rounds were dealt, before the house approached a break-even point from their loss of action with one round between shuffles. Unfortunately, casinos never conduct time and motion studies.

Send the meaning of life (and fast, before I conclude that my nightmare vision of reality is true) to: The Bishop c/o Blackjack Forum.   ♠

The Davies Card Counting System for Beating the Royal Match Side Bet

by John Leib
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XIV #1, March 1994)
© 1994 Blackjack Forum

An advertisement for the Davies System appeared in Blackjack Forum, December 1993, along with a short review by Arnold Snyder. The purpose of the Davies Card Counting System is to profit from the “Royal Match” proposition on some blackjack layouts.

Just What Is “Royal Match”?

The Royal Match wager is offered before a round is dealt, and is independent of the blackjack implications of the play of the hand. The amount which can be wagered is limited by the casino, but is generally related to the amount wagered on the blackjack hand.

The Royal Match wager wins when the first two cards dealt to the wagering hand are of the same suit; otherwise the wager is lost. If the wager is a winner it is paid off at odds of 3 to 1 (4 for 1), unless the cards are the king and queen, in which case the odds are 10 to 1.

Obviously, there are some situations in which the Royal Match wager has a positive expectation for the player. (A clear example would be 13 cards remaining, all hearts.) The Davies System relies on a counting scheme and attendant strategy table to select the rounds on which the Royal Match wager should be made.

Testing the Davies System for the Royal Match Side Bet

I was immediately interested in this new money-making opportunity so, at Arnold’s suggestion, I wrote to CCS and Associates, the publisher of the Davies System, offering to perform an independent, unbiased analysis, and to publish the results in Blackjack Forum if, and only if, they and I had agreed to this beforehand.

By return mail I received a copy of the Davies System and a letter signed by Lee R. Bakewell, whom I presume is a principal in CCS and Associates. The letter showed interest in my proposal, but did not agree at that time to publication of the results.

On January 5th I got their agreement to evaluate the Davies System and to publish the results. For system comparison purposes, I included a parallel evaluation of perfect Royal Match decisions (taking the wager whenever it had a positive expectation). Both faced the same situations at every card level from 47 remaining to 6 remaining, in 50 million randomly shuffled decks. Table 1 contains the results of the simulations used in that evaluation.

What Do The Davies Count System Simulations Say?

The first question I had was, “How efficient is the Davies System?” The meaning of “efficiency” in this context is the ratio of winnings using the Davies System to what would theoretically be possible using perfect play. This turned out to be a question which had 42 answers, one for each level of penetration.

I had decided that the best playing situation to hope for on a continuing bases would be head-to-head play, with seven rounds dealt before shuffling. So what were the meaningful levels in going through the deck? Clearly, the first round is out because we know the Royal Match expectation for this round is -3.77%. So I approximated the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th rounds as coming with 45, 39, 33, 27, 21, and 15 cards remaining, respectively. (You may not like my choices. If not, the raw data is in the table so you can select your own.)

One might suggest playing out the blackjack hands to get the specific penetration for each round, for each deck. I agree with the purity of such an approach, and welcome anyone to do their own 50 million decks of corresponding data. I doubt that the effort would be worth it, but I would be very happy to see how closely we agree.

It may surprise you how well the Davies System did on the question of efficiency. Averaged over the selected penetration levels, it extracted 75.49% of what would have been the reward for perfect play. This is impressive because the Davies System is quite simple, but yet is quite powerful.

Hourly Royal Match Win Rates

Is Royal Match for you? Well, what are your goals? As a curiosity, the Royal Match can be beaten. But for how much? Can you retire on your Royal Match winnings?

Let us return to “the best situation for any system: head-to-head play, with seven rounds dealt before shuffling”. Using my selected levels for Royal Match wagering opportunities and $50 wagers whenever a wager is called for, perfect play returns an average of only $3.24 per deck played, while the Davies System returns $2.44. You can, of course, select your own levels and calculate your own winnings per deck.

At $2.44 per deck, what does this imply in money-making terms? If we are fortunate enough to get 200 rounds per hour, with seven rounds per deck we would expect to get about 29 decks per hour, yielding about $69.84 per hour.

Enough to live on, of course, but will you generally get this kind of game? If you find yourself with six other players, the $50 Royal Match wager returns per deck (30 cards remaining) 24 cents with perfect play and 21 cents with the Davies System. With 35 decks per hour, this translates into $7.30 per hour. This may not be enough to live on, and you must contend with playing blackjack too, and may have a difficult time with the count for that.

Some methods of play can improve the average winnings per deck. For example, if the player always takes two hands when the Davies System calls for it on the sixth round (21 cards lef) this round would return an additional 48 cents per deck on $50 Royal Match wagers. This might come at a stiff price, however, by reducing the likelihood of a seventh round, which shows a profit of $1.55 (and there would be a strong correlation between wagering on the sixth round and wagering on the seventh round). If, however, you do get the seventh round after this two-hand sixth round, it will come significantly deeper into the deck, perhaps with 13 cards remaining and its attendant $2.12. If you are getting seven rounds per deck, it may be better to try spreading to two hands on the seventh round (15 cards remaining). If this works, it would increase the per-deck return by $1.55.

So much of the success of the Davies System depends on how deep the dealer goes before shuffling. This would appear to be more important than how many hands per hour you play because of the great increase in expectation with penetration.

How to Read the Davies Royal Match System Simulation Tables

The table has four columns: LEFT, TxS-BETS, TxS-EDGE, and EST-EDGE, where “x” indicates which decision criterion was used: “P” for “Perfect”, “D” for “Davies”. LEFT indicates the deck penetration, and gives the unseen cards at the moment of making the Royal Match wager decision. TxS-BETS shows how many times in 50 million decks that the x-algorithm indicated the wager should be made. TxS-EDGE shows the return on those wagers for each unit wagered, divided by 50 million, and is given in percent. EST-EDGE is the sum of the theoretical advantages for those wagers divided by 50 million, and serves as a check on the simulation. These values will be close to those in the preceding column if the simulation is correct.

For calculating effectiveness, actual results of the wagers (TxS-EDGE) were used, not the values in the EST-EDGE. To find the amount won per deck on $50 Royal Match wagers, add the values in the TxS-EDGE column at the levels of penetration expected when Royal Match wagers may be made. Divide this value by 2 to get the per-deck winnings in dollars.

Parting Comments on the Royal Match Side Bet

Royal Match will probably never make anyone rich at the table, but it does offer some positive expectation opportunities which can be tapped for additional profit. The Davies System provides a fairly strong approach to these profits, yet is quite simple. It does take work to prepare for casino play, and probably more concentration than most effective blackjack card counting systems.

The question of whether attention to the Davies System count will cost the blackjack counter more in blackjack win than that won from Royal Match remains unanswered at this writing. If you have mastered basic strategy and that is what you play, then you should be able to concentrate on the Davies System and add a few extra dollars to salve the wounds caused by your blackjack losses. (I note no casinos that are identified as offering Royal Match have blackjack rules such that basic strategy does not lose.)

A further question in my mind is will a casino deal to a player who is playing the game only for the Royal Match play? Somehow, I think a $2 blackjack wager with an occasional $50 Royal Match wager (never off the top!) would not be tolerated for long, especially if it becomes clear that the player is winning with this approach. It strikes me as a more-difficult problem to camouflage a winning Royal Match system than to camouflage a winning blackjack counting system.

On January 8, Lee Bakewell sent me written confirmation of his agreement to publication of the results of my analysis of the Davies System, along with some enhancements designed to improve the system’s effectiveness. I immediately incorporated these enhancements and ran a new set of 10 million decks to see how beneficial the enhancements, indeed, were. The results, shown in Table 2, were quite impressive.

(NOTE: You will see that the TPS-EDGE and EST-EDGE columns for PERFECT PLAY are different in some corresponding entries between the two tables. You may wonder why this is the case. It is because they are each the result of an independent simulation and represent a different set of samples, with the resultant difference for these average values. The difference is small in all cases.)

Using the same penetration levels as before for head-to-head play, I found the efficiency of the Davies System Enhanced to be 91.73%, when compared to perfect play over these ten million decks. With $50 Royal Match wagers, this translates to an average of $3.01 per deck, or about $85.90 per hour in the fast, head-to-head game, a 23% improvement over the non-enhanced version. In the seven-player, two-round game, the average profit per deck (30 cards remaining) is about 23 cents. (Perfect play gives a profit of 25 cents per deck for this set of 10 million decks.)

This improvement comes at a price: The counting system is more complicated and would, therefore, increase the time to train for actual casino play, the concentration needed in the casino, and the difficulty in pursuing a point count playing strategy for the blackjack hand. In my opinion, only a rare few would have the discipline to accurately count for both Royal Match wagers and blackjack play, while the rest would have to rely on basic strategy for blackjack playing decisions. This would be ripe for a team approach to protect the blackjack wager while finding the lucrative Royal Match opportunities.

Below is a summary of things you should know as a result of these simulations. It shows six different playing conditions and gives the average profit per deck, profit per hour, and expectation on Royal Match wagers when called for by the Davies System. Both regular and enhanced versions are included. The columns labeled “EXP” is the average expectation on Royal Match wagers and is calculated as the total amount won divided by the total amount wagered, expressed as a percent.

A significant observation can be made to support that the benefits of the enhanced version over the regular version lie in the higher expectations. (I understand that the Davies System now being distributed is the enhanced versions, and earlier purchasers have been updated.) Much of this comes from inhibiting wagers which would otherwise be called for. While making 23% more money, only about 80% as much was wagered. This makes it much safer from a “risk of ruin” point of view.

As you can see, this table does not form a smooth curve and interpolation/extrapolation might be dangerous.

What More Can We Do?

It would be interesting to see what the combination of Davies System and blackjack counting can do, with various approaches to the blackjack wager and number of hands, and with various depths of penetration. I hope to explore these questions for a future issue of Blackjack Forum.  ♠

Summary of Davies Royal Match Card Counting System Analysis

	REGULAR VERSION	ENHANCED VERSION
Players	Rounds	Hands/Hr	$/Deck	$/Hour	Exp	$/Deck	$/Hour	Exp
7	2	70	$0.21	$7.30	2.82%	$0.23	$7.88	3.21%
4	3	100	$0.43	$14.25	2.48%	$0.47	$15.67	2.96%
3	4	120	$0.91	$27.38	2.73%	$1.27	$38.14	4.73%
2	4	150	$0.35	$13.17	2.07%	$0.40	$14.92	2.53%
2	5	150	$0.83	$25.00	2.11%	$1.13	$33.83	4.48%
1	7	200	$2.44	$69.84	3.77%	$3.01	$85.90	4.33%

TABLE 1
ROYAL MATCH ANALYSIS

50,000,000 Decks Played	PERFECT	DAVIES
Per Deck Win on $50 *Bets:	$3.2380	$2.4444
	Efficiency:	75.4910%

PERFECT PLAY

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	10562306	0.8829%	0.9037%
46	16832	0.0003%	0.0003%	25	9810734	1.0417%	1.0344%
45	91650	0.0025%	0.0010%	24	9619151	1.1746%	1.1755%
44	146757	0.0034%	0.0023%	23	11710914	1.3514%	1.3520%
43	276459	0.0044%	0.0054%	22	11711140	1.5230%	1.5277%
42	402526	0.0118%	0.0106%	21	12496058	1.7238%	1.7361%
41	865461	0.0180%	0.0200%	20	12418021	1.9801%	1.9705%
40	1361867	0.0253%	0.0326%	19	13747058	2.2378%	2.2193%
39	1735815	0.0510%	0.0491%	18	12883330	2.5094%	2.5157%
38	2094195	0.0699%	0.0714%	17	13102034	2.8387%	2.8231%
37	2851369	0.0975%	0.1006%	16	14695124	3.2548%	3.2346%
36	3503400	0.1346%	0.1354%	15	15394673	3.6472%	3.6670%
35	4083919	0.1816%	0.1752%	14	16479167	4.1245%	4.1187%
34	4862287	0.2207%	0.2228%	13	15976203	4.7407%	4.7228%
33	5710462	0.2607%	0.2772%	12	17587821	5.4030%	5.4060%
32	6557465	0.3243%	0.3396%	11	18146368	6.1340%	6.1340%
31	6710487	0.4235%	0.4094%	10	18710903	7.3941%	7.4136%
30	7472002	0.4839%	0.4884%	9	14717051	8.3194%	8.3259%
29	7813685	0.5783%	0.5732%	8	12944131	9.4726%	9.4689%
28	8331258	0.6770%	0.6673%	7	17422067	12.2727%	12.2413%
27	9032900	0.7909%	0.7821%	6	24435568	14.1606%	14.1772%

THE DAVIES SYSTEM

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	13590557	0.6797%	0.7015%
46	16832	0.0003%	0.0003%	25	14428971	0.8323%	0.8385%
45	102973	0.0022%	0.0009%	24	15328227	0.9727%	0.9696%
44	356620	0.0022%	0.0009%	23	16885566	1.0489%	1.0466%
43	718453	-0.0006%	-0.0001%	22	19641568	0.9908%	0.9972%
42	1135989	-0.0016%	0.0005%	21	22509849	0.9637%	0.9597%
41	1607271	0.0019%	0.0058%	20	24362612	1.0763%	1.0774%
40	2203403	0.0100%	0.0158%	19	24376220	1.4059%	1.4032%
39	2784001	0.0227%	0.0284%	18	23855593	1.7579%	1.7626%
38	3299284	0.0453%	0.0468%	17	23135185	2.1845%	2.1714%
37	3771649	0.0669%	0.0743%	16	22761011	2.6146%	2.5867%
36	4309693	0.1095%	0.1085%	15	21646282	3.0950%	3.1219%
35	4777867	0.1503%	0.1430%	14	20644515	3.7246%	3.7313%
34	5175336	0.1782%	0.1847%	13	20905208	4.2307%	4.2300%
33	5509838	0.2141%	0.2386%	12	24082712	4.3297%	4.3337%
32	5875004	0.2813%	0.3013%	11	29575747	3.9535%	3.9621%
31	6411455	0.3723%	0.3618%	10	32428895	4.3252%	4.3423%
30	7400492	0.4172%	0.4198%	9	29099947	6.4594%	6.4693%
29	9021576	0.4726%	0.4666%	8	23998472	9.3691%	9.3665%
28	10740177	0.5164%	0.5153%	7	23875685	11.4091%	11.3733%
27	12300661	0.5910%	0.5877%	6	24018501	13.9370%	13.9517%

TABLE 2
ROYAL MATCH ANALYSIS
(ENHANCED VERSION)

10,000,000 Decks Played	PERFECT	DAVIES
Per Deck Win on $50 *Bets:	$3.2773	$3.0065
	Efficiency:	91.7349%

PERFECT PLAY

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	2111717	0.9011%	0.9037%
46	3383	-0.0001%	0.0003%	25	1961015	1.0119%	1.0345%
45	18353	0.0030%	0.0010%	24	1923584	1.1717%	1.1754%
44	29395	0.0007%	0.0023%	23	2342628	1.3226%	1.3514%
43	55223	0.0069%	0.0054%	22	2342291	1.5149%	1.5271%
42	80786	0.0099%	0.0106%	21	2500231	1.7312%	1.7363%
41	173071	0.0314%	0.0201%	20	2484415	1.9170%	1.9703%
40	272096	0.0311%	0.0326%	19	2748569	2.2354%	2.2189%
39	347388	0.0316%	0.0490%	18	2576641	2.5515%	2.5140%
38	418217	0.0779%	0.0712%	17	2619991	2.8304%	2.8222%
37	569621	0.1220%	0.1003%	16	2938812	3.2253%	3.2333%
36	700850	0.1308%	0.1352%	15	3077918	3.7214%	3.6654%
35	815824	0.1678%	0.1753%	14	3294481	4.0757%	4.1162%
34	972648	0.2258%	0.2229%	13	3194823	4.7808%	4.7220%
33	1141664	0.2774%	0.2773%	12	3516535	5.4100%	5.4016%
32	1310725	0.3056%	0.3396%	11	3628065	6.1460%	6.1280%
31	1341341	0.3993%	0.4096%	10	3740120	7.3129%	7.4044%
30	1493329	0.5048%	0.4883%	9	2940757	8.3377%	8.3151%
29	1560046	0.6066%	0.5729%	8	2585983	9.4554%	9.4556%
28	1665641	0.6758%	0.6668%	7	3483027	12.1492%	12.2308%
27	1805680	0.7901%	0.7819%	6	4887680	14.1385%	14.1776%

THE DAVIES SYSTEM

LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE	LEFT	TPS-BETS	TPS-EDGE	EST-EDGE
47	0	0.0000%	0.0000%	26	2381229	0.7913%	0.8018%
46	3383	-0.0001%	0.0003%	25	2550639	0.9312%	0.9318%
45	20589	0.0019%	0.0009%	24	2735606	1.0888%	1.0566%
44	71525	-0.0088%	0.0009%	23	2986979	1.1860%	1.1759%
43	150862	-0.0007%	-0.0001%	22	3335243	1.2898%	1.2869%
42	250891	0.0097%	0.0003%	21	3632284	1.4592%	1.4512%
41	369402	0.0194%	0.0044%	20	3737665	1.6570%	1.7130%
40	502906	0.0165%	0.0138%	19	3604193	2.0733%	2.0626%
39	622449	0.0090%	0.0279%	18	3397649	2.4518%	2.4193%
38	719314	0.0598%	0.0488%	17	3196603	2.7735%	2.7796%
37	802202	0.0901%	0.0787%	16	3083429	3.1543%	3.1544%
36	892655	0.1192%	0.1149%	15	3042799	3.6075%	3.5434%
35	964436	0.1332%	0.1522%	14	3212390	3.7979%	3.8684%
34	1024690	0.2054%	0.1959%	13	3517161	4.3052%	4.3008%
33	1075104	0.2500%	0.2506%	12	3787099	5.0876%	5.0407%
32	1137433	0.3071%	0.3124%	11	3758762	6.0972%	6.0692%
31	1232305	0.3604%	0.3728%	10	3447739	7.1186%	7.2093%
30	1402885	0.4500%	0.4349%	9	2931329	8.3254%	8.3024%
29	1669190	0.5104%	0.4992%	8	2498463	9.3508%	9.3534%
28	1939498	0.5979%	0.5751%	7	1994831	10.1246%	10.1801%
27	2178521	0.6854%	0.6738%	6	1334755	10.4211%	10.4522%

Video Blackjack in South Carolina: Too Good to be True

by Outgoer and the Eradigator
(From Blackjack Forum Vol. XVIII #3, Fall 1998)
© 1998 Blackjack Forum

To scout or not to scout? Our friend “Springbok” asked us to scout a game for him in South Carolina after “Carolina Maddog” made a post on Arnold Snyder’s private message board about great video blackjack (VBJ) games in South Carolina. The games did appear too good to be true, with an estimated advantage off the top of about 1.2% to 1.5% (depending on the frequency of the “oops” feature). To top it off, the double-deck game supposedly had 75% penetration with a spread of between $1 and $100 and the ability to play up to five spots—with no heat!

What could be better? Playing at 100 hands per hour with a reasonable spread this game could have been worth up to $300 per hour, with moderate risk compared to normal live blackjack. (Snyder had commented that 500 hands per hour might be possible on these machines. This would be realistic for ordinary VBJ machines, but with most video blackjack carousels, much more than 100-200 hands per hour are rarely possible.) If all this information was correct then the game would be worth exploring.

So, we decided to scout the game—despite our misgivings about it possibly being too good to be true. We were well aware of the existence of video blackjack machines with crooked software made by a major manufacturer (SEGA) that posted great rules but were in fact rigged to pay out at fixed percentages just like ordinary slot machines (see “Rip-Off Robo-Dealers” by Allan Pell, Blackjack Forum, December 1992).

In Nevada and New Jersey at least the gaming regulations make such games illegal by virtue of the fact that the probabilities in video card games must be based on random shuffles and deals, to match those of the live table games they simulate. But who knew what the situation would be like in South Carolina where there is no gaming commission? The only information we had from Carolina Maddog was that the machines were manufactured in South Carolina, manufacturers unknown.

Video Blackjack in Myrtle Beach

Anyway, we headed off to the sunny vacation spot of Myrtle Beach—just a couple of hours drive from the “South of the Border” Truck Stop on I-95. We decided to check Myrtle Beach out while we were there—it certainly seemed a better place to stay than the truck stop.

In Myrtle Beach we found quite a few places advertising video blackjack games—they were all basically small gambling joints. Some are larger than others, and it is doubtful whether many of them would have been able to handle big action. We had no problem with being paid despite the $125 max per day payout law that exists in South Carolina. They seemed to just print out multiple tickets if you win more than $125, but some places did have signs that said they would strictly enforce the paying out of only one ticket per day (which is what the law technically requires).

We could not find any of the double decks mentioned by Carolina Maddog. In fact, one of the biggest problems we had was determining how many decks were used. Most machines did not tell you how many decks were used and the operators didn’t appear too clued up either—which meant having to find out by counting the number of cards of the same suit.

We also found that most of the machines did not have the 5-card charlie rule. However, we did find one (with the 5-card charlie rule) that said it was four decks. About two decks were dealt, giving poor penetration of only 50%. The others we found with the 5-card rule also seemed to be (at least) 4 decks, with two decks dealt out. Obviously the game was not worth as much if there were only 4-deck or greater games and no double-deck games. Also, the bad penetration seriously reduced the advantage we could get from card counting (and so also increased the risk if we were to flat bet in order to get the approximate 1% advantage from the 5-card charlie rule).

We found a lot of different games in Myrtle Beach, with different rules, that were made by different manufacturers. The machines didn’t seem too professionally made and the manufacturers’ names normally just appeared as stickers on the machines, with local or 1-800 contact telephone numbers on them.

Now comes the problem of assessing honesty—something that should not be taken lightly given the apparent lack of regulation. We decided to play for small stakes until we felt comfortable with the games. We just used the hi-lo running count and kept a record of how long we played for and our net results. We also decided to contact the manufacturers and ask them about their games.

Virtually every place we played at we lost. As most people who understand statistics realize though, it takes quite a lot of play to reach a statistically significant conclusion on a game’s honesty. In some games though, we found that we kept getting high running counts near the shuffle point. In fact, in one place we ended on a positive running count 12 times in a row. Now, that is more statistically conclusive and did make us a bit suspicious of the honesty of these games. More on what the manufacturers had to say later.

South of the Border Video Blackjack

A bit disillusioned by Myrtle Beach, we decided to check out for ourselves the infamous “South of the Border” tourist trap that Carolina Maddog had originally posted about. Maybe there were better and more honest machines up there.

As reported by Carolina Maddog, we found two types of games, one with a male voice, another with a female voice, both with the “oops” feature. The one with the male voice had a penetration of about 75 cards but was definitely not a double deck game as Carolina Maddog had posted. At the “Orient Express” (where Carolina Maddog played) we counted four suited cards of the same denomination in one shuffle; they also had a triple 7s jackpot that was for “suited 7s.”

So, although they did not have a sign saying how many decks the machines used, it must have been at least four decks. We played what looked like the same machine (also a male voice) at the “Silver Slipper,” but there we found a sign above the machine saying that the game was dealt from eight decks. It also said that it had a “random deal,” for what that is worth. We played for 2.5 hours at low stakes, again lost, but this time only had six more positive shoes than negative shoes.

When we decided to contact the 1-800 phone number on the machine for the manufacturer, guess what? It turned out to be a limo service!! We also found that the machine with the female voice does not seem to have a shuffle point (which could mean it shuffles after every hand OR just doesn’t show you when it shuffles). We played one of these machines for about two hours and kept a running count, which ended about even.

On arriving back in Myrtle Beach we decided to do a bit more investigating by finding out about the regulations surrounding the games and what we could glean from some of the manufacturers. Both sources proved enlightening, but we did not hear what we wanted to hear.

Posing as potential purchasers, we asked one manufacturer about how the house can get an edge when it offers good rules like the 5-card charlie. The reply we got was that he thought the normal advantage on the video blackjack was about 15%! The scary thing, though, was that he said they sold an additional software program that would stabilize your advantage up to the state regulatory limit of 20%. He said that some places chose their version that enabled you to set that advantage lower so as to encourage business from high rollers.

This manufacturer was really trying to sell us his “cheating” software, saying it was better than the other company’s cheating software. He claimed his was better because it provided a random deal to the customers, and just changed the dealer’s hole-card depending on the player’s cards so as to maintain the advantage at a fixed %! He claimed that this was technically legal because it provided the players with randomly dealt cards.

He said he thought the others were not technically legal because they stacked the deck against the players (by keeping a larger proportion of the high cards behind the cut card). In an earlier discussion with a colleague of his it was claimed that their software had been checked by the S.C. Department of Revenue, which was satisfied that it complied with the state regulations.

This manufacturer told us that everyone who bought a machine from him also bought this add-on software. He even told us of one operator who declined the special software but was back after a few months because he had had a losing month. He also told us of one place that had the software from the other company (that stacked the decks). Funnily enough, this was one of the places we had played at where we kept getting high running counts.

So, obviously, there seem to be two main types of “cheating” software on the market—one that stacks the decks so it is like always playing at a bad negative count (even though the count keeps going up!), and another that alters the dealer’s cards as required. In the first case it is fairly easy to detect cheating by keeping a count. However, in the second case (and in possibly numerous other ways) cheating can be very difficult to detect except after analyzing the outcome of lengthy play.

We then contacted the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (SCDORT) to find out a bit more about the regulations. In speaking with them on the phone, it appeared that their main concern was with collecting the annual license fees that applied to video gaming machines. However, they did send us a copy of the legislation that governs the operation of video gaming machines (Article 20: Video Gaming Act – 1993 Act No. 164, section 19A, effective July 1993).

This legislation requires each machine to be licensed (s. 12-21-2778) and regulated by the SCDORT. Of specific interest are the following two sections:

12-21-2774 (1) which says that each licensed machine “may not have any means of manipulation that affect the random probabilities of winning a video game.”

12-21-2782 (A) (1) “The Department of Revenue and Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations regarding the type of machines that may be licensed providing for minimum technical standards to ensure that the games are random, have a minimum payback of at least eighty percent, are secure and accountable, do not operate in a misleading or deceptive way, …”

We wonder how SCDORT could possibly approve either type of “cheating” software? Do they seriously see nothing legally wrong with such software or is it the case that there is no enforcement of this legislation? Apparently there are some court cases that revolve around the video game industry but we were not able to find any details about these. Also, at present, the video gaming industry is the subject of much heated political debate. So changes in legislation may be imminent.

Final Analysis: South Caroline Video Blackjack

We eventually decided to give up on the games. We felt that the big problem for anyone wanting to play these games was that even if you do find an honest game there would be nothing stopping the operators from adding software to rig it afterwards. Then you could lose a ton of money in a short time if you thought the game was still on the level.

In our opinion, Carolina Maddog must have been extremely lucky. Either he was lucky enough to stumble upon an honest game or he was invoking some special powers from the First Church of Blackjack! One of the best ways to prove a game is honest is to beat it. So, even given his limited hours, the amount Carolina Maddog won would have been quite a feat if he had played a game with a 10-20% vig.

Interesting enough, the suppliers of the machine with the female voice (not the one Carolina Maddog played) claim it is random. However, when we inquired about the specialized software they said that although they did not supply it, they assured us that it would not be a problem to buy it from another source and add it on.

After spending a short holiday in Myrtle Beach we had to head out early because Hurricane Bonnie had its own plans. The mayor of Myrtle Beach suggested that it would be in our best interests to evacuate. Similar advice seems to apply to video blackjack in South Carolina—it’s in your best interests to avoid it.

So, be warned, although there might be honest video blackjack games in South Carolina, if you don’t find one you’re sure to lose your shirt if you play for serious money. ♠