I've been collecting table game icons for several years. My collection dates back to G2E, 2005, when I made sure to get every rack sheet I could find. My collection now has over 200 icons. Late last year, I created a video showing off my collection. I've used that video at several conference talks to illustrate the problem of game protection in the face of an onslaught of new games. Here is the video:
The table game Racing Card Derby (RCD) is meant to be dealt from a single deck of cards. I explored the “what if” of card counting RCD if dealt from an eight-deck shoe in this post. Card counting works on most games whose probabilities change as cards are dealt from a shoe. Whereas card counting is an after-effect of the rules and procedures of a game, hole-carding opportunities usually arise from sloppy dealing. This post explores advantage play against RCD when a card is known.
One of the original blackjack side bets is the Insurance wager. This side bet pays 2-to-1 whenever the dealer’s hole card is a ten-valued card, otherwise it loses. This side bet is clearly countable by keeping track of the number of ten-valued cards relative to non-ten-valued cards. The only reason it has not been crushed by APs is because of two limitations on this wager. First, it can only be made when the dealer shows an Ace up, so that the player only has the opportunity to make this side bet once per 13 hands on average.
In recent years there has been a steady rise in the adoption of new table games. When a new game arrives, the staff is often unfamiliar with the rules, procedures, and basic methods of protection for that game. Thus, most casinos attempt to follow the rules and procedures as written without understanding the “whys” of the procedures. Over time, certain parts of that procedure may get sloppy. This can make the game vulnerable and may ultimately lead to a significant decrease in the game’s hold.
One of the most interesting aspects of this conference was a competition between the table games for best game. Each participant in the conference was given the opportunity to vote on the games. To be eligible to vote, the participant had to play each game. This play is certified: after a game was played, the vendor stamped a card. Only a participant with a full card could vote.
Here is a sample stamp-card.
Things are really mixed up. At least, they should be. I’ve been thinking about commonalities between recent successes that some players have had against casinos. While the cultural and casino industry obsession with card counters is not fading, the powerful methods advantage players and cheaters use to beat the house continue on in relative obscurity. Many of these methods share one thing in common: they exploit some weakness in the shuffle procedure.
Continued here …
The Ace automatic shuffler has many game security problems, the most serious of which is its propensity to encourage hole-card exposure by even highly trained dealers. (See my blog post "Little Ace of Horrors.") After many years of fighting that battle, Shuffle Master finally gave up the cause. In its place, Shuffle Master created the iDEAL automatic shuffler, pictured here correctly installed on a Three Card Poker table (picture from Shuffle Master web site):
A recent article in the Lehigh Valley Live discussed a New Jersey man, Ikwaan Anin Dobbins, who was accused of cheating at Three Card Poker. What this goofball allegedly did was to “swap cards” (also called card mucking) to give himself better hands. This method of cheating involves playing more than one hand at a time, and switching cards between the two hands to improve one or both of the hands.
