NO THEY DO NOT

I am a dealer in a casino and I take the cards out of the boxes that came straight from the factory.

The casino had no chance to touch em.

MaGiShN46

Thank you kindly for giving us all the benefit your expert knowledge. They are looking for guy’s like you in Vegas.

There's many more "flats" in the world than there are "sharps"......and that's where the casinos make all their money.

The percentage of folks who will take the time to understand "Mindplay" (and care) is probably somewhat less than 1.

As a very young man, I read all of Scarne's books, and although I love the entire gambling story, I've had a life long dislike for gambling in casinos........all based on Scarne's often repeated statement that you just can't win in the long run (on the square).

This is just another example of the casinos living up to Scarnes words.....now decades old and still as true as ever.

An electronic counter on the player is against the law, and electronic counter for the house is celebrated as good business practice by both the casinos and the State.
When you walk in the door of a casino with money in your pocket that you intend to gamble on any of the table games other than poker.......... you sure start lookin' like the Flat!

Are you ready for your peeling, Mr. England? I defy you to find ONE dealer who can both count and deal Blackjack at the same time. Those who are in the business know exactly what I'm talking about.
Let's run through a very realistic scenario. You might find a dealer's thoughts while attempting to count, using hi-lo, and deal a game (with 4 players) at the same time could very well read like this, "No more bets. 16. Stay. 11. Double down. 18. Stay. Blackjack. Ok 25 pays 37.50. Dealer has 9. 12. 19. Now the count is +4. Oh no! I forgot about the Blackjack I just locked up. It's really +2. Now to pay and take the bets: 18 loses, 20 wins, 16 loses. Time to lock up the cards. New player buying in. Changing $100. Good luck! I wonder if I get the E.O. break today. Oh crap! What was the count again?!"

Like to see anyone pull that off for a few hands, let alone a shoe. And we're not even talking about converting it to a true count, which signifies the player's real advantage.

Floorpersons don't have time to count either. That would mean dedicating all of their attention to only one of the 6 (or more table, in some cases). Some casinos have employees dedicating to identifying and deterring card counters called the "count team." They are often the ones who tell to shuffle early to throw the card counter off. It is NEVER up to the dealer to shuffle when THEY find the count to favor the players.

Hello.

Speaking about card counting....I remember a story when I palyed at Circus Circus many years ago when I jumped into a blackjack games when I saw the count was high....as soon as I bought into the game the pit boss told the dealer to shuffle.

Funny how that does not consitute cheating by the casino ?

I know Blackjack dealers who count.
They tell me that a lot of the time they do it to reduce the boredom of dealing.
I'm not saying that all dealers count, only that I know a few that do.
They would come into the coffee room during their shift and talk about odd or long stretches where there shoe was either positive or negative.

Have you tried it yourself? I think your dealer buddies are pulling your chain.

Expert, have to agree. It hardly seems fair. They just seemed to find some loophole since they lost the 'card carding is cheating' arguement in court. Find a way to beat them legit., and they find another way to mess you up. Luckily, people are always finding other ways to gain an advantage.

Mook,

I'm certainly willing to defer to you on this one. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it: I've no experience in the gaming industry and don't pretend to know it all. I'm simply basing my comments on books I've read and discussions I've had with others. Preferential shuffling has been discussed at length in many articles and books on Blackjack. Many of those books imply that the dealer is doing the counting (while dealing), but I certainly agree this would be difficult.

However, before you dismiss it completely, consider these excerpts (emphasis mine):

"Preferential shuffling is when the dealer counts cards, then shuffles when the remaining deck has excess high cards, but continues dealing when the remaining deck contains excess low cards."
- Arnold Snyder, The Big Book of Blackjack, p. 291.


"Suppose the dealer is capable of counting cards, or at the very least, can spot a rash of small or large cards when they appear."
- Don Schlesinger, Blackjack Attack, 2nd Edition, p. 192.


"It is not difficult for a dealer who knows how to count cards to deal and count at the same time."
- Bill Zender, How to Detect Casino Cheating at Blackjack, p. 136
(Interestingly, Zender has an entire chapter devoted to preferential shuffling (based on the idea that dealers can count and deal, and also discusses what appears to be a prototype of Mindplay, called "Safejack." His book was written in 1990.)


"Preferential shuffling is when a dealer counts cards, then shuffles up if the deck favors the player, but deals when the deck favors the house."
-Arnold Snyder, Blackbelt in Blackjack, p. 128.


"If the dealer can track cards, he will eliminate any favorable situations for the player."

"After noticing my winnings, the [pit] boss stood there tracking cards with me. Every time the deck was favorable, he would tell the dealer to shuffle up."
-Lance Humble, The World's Greatest Blackjack Book, p. 144-45.

One final quote, from casino instructions printed in a sort of dealer's "handbook" and distributed to employees: "Shuffle any time a total of six 4s, 5s and 6s have been placed in the discard rack."

Jason here: Now, this is obviously crude, but it is nonetheless an attempt at a rudimentary count of some type. And, it's codified and being distributed to all the 21 dealers! (The reprint of this particular casino's employee manual was in Casino and Sports magazine, Vol 8 (1979). It was the "counters and countermeasures" issue, and was published by the Gambler's Book Club.


So what am I to make of these comments Mook? I get what you're saying, and perhaps I overstated the case by saying "when the shoe turns positive." Most of the authors I've cited indicate that preferential shuffling usually takes place in single deck games.

But you seem to be saying it's essentially impossible. Is that what you're saying? Because these (respected) authors appear to disagree with you.

Jason

Those authors are very respected and reputable and offer valuable knowledge and insight to the industry, but they are in your club- "The People Who Have Never Dealt in a Casino." I have a deep respect for all of them and have all of the books you cited. Let's put this in perspective.

Arnold Snyder- a remarkable card player/advantage player with many years of playing under his belt, never a casino dealer. It is easy for me see how he could perceive that a dealer is counting, when I myself have experienced a pit boss, shift manager, or count team member walk by my table and casually tell me to "shuffle up" as he/she walked by. Arnold gives a lot of info in his books that is "right on the money," (pun intended), and devastating to casinos.

Don Schlesinger is a mathematician, again with valuable information written in his books, never a casino dealer. And besides, you quote him as writing "Suppose the dealer is capable..." That hardly states that the dealer IS capable of counting and dealing. The second half of that quote says "spot a rash of small or large cards when they appear." That is the idea of counting, but seeing a large amount of high- or low-value cards dealt in one round is not actually counting, just observing. Still valuable info, but not actually counting. I looked in my copy of this book, which is a third edition, and did not find what you are quoting on p. 192.

Bill Zender- author of many books that are valuable reference books for the industry, as far as I know, he was gaming control agent, in casino management, and a consultant, but not a dealer (at least not within the past two decades). I have to disagree with this statement. This quote is from a section in which he and his friend are performing a Blackjack SIMULATION where a player is playing single deck, heads-up, with a 32-card penetration. In today's single-deck game, Blackjacks are paid 6 to 5, which card counters cannot overcome (they can't gain the advantage they do with 3 to 2), so the point of whether or not a dealer can count in this situation is moot. I still stand on my position anyway.

Lance Humble- why you even put this here is a mystery to me. The question is whether or not a dealer can count cards and deal at the same time, not if a pit boss can count along with a player. This quoted scenario is absolutely feasible.

The supposed dealer manual you quoted is telling the dealers to shuffle arbitrarily. Don't buy that one. Which casino is supposedly giving these to their dealers? The cut card tells the dealers when to shuffle. Any dealer who shuffles at will without the cut card coming out, is breaching procedures and could easily be accused by management of attempting to manipulate the game. They often look at dealers very closely who break procedures. Seeing 4's-6's come out is as much counting cards as the guy playing catch with his son outside a stadium is pitching at a major league game. You could call it what you want, but it's not the same. Card counting is very precise.

Preferential shuffling does exist. I won't argue about that. I will say that the dealer does NOT make this decision. It is management- pit bosses, shift managers, or count team members, whose sole purpose, at the time, is to count along with the players and let the dealer know when it is time to shuffle, in an attempt to prevent players from winning. They are positioned either behind the dealer or behind the player or in the next pit and can tell the dealer to shuffle with a simple nod. Don't ASSume that the dealer is making the decision to shuffle. If you ASSume...

I appreciate you taking the time to quote all these books in an attempt to prove me wrong, but it was truly overkill. Why don't you just SIMULATE a Blackjack game with players buying in, hits, splits, Blackjacks, paying winners, taking losers, etc., while keeping a steady game pace and counting the cards all at once? What incentive is there for a dealer to count cards anyway? They gain a majority of their paychecks from tokes (tips), while the casino pays them just above minimum wage. Why would they want to bite the hand that feeds them? And like I said before, "It is NEVER up to the dealer to shuffle when THEY find the count to favor the players."

If it makes you feel better, I will concede that a dealer could possibly count cards and deal at the same time IF he is dealing a single deck game with 7 players. In that case, only one hand would be dealt before the shuffle, so it wouldn't really matter anyway. But if it makes you feel better, under THOSE circumstances, it could be possible for a dealer to count cards and deal at the same time.

The list of cited references in this thread which support the statement that dealers can count when dealing is substantial.

You're asking that we accept your statement that they can't count when dealing simply because you're offering it.

Do you have any references you can cite which support your statement that dealers can't count when dealing?

Silverking,

Mook doesn't need to do that. After rereading his posts, and especially his second post, I actually agree with him on virtually all counts (no pun intended).

I wasn't refuting his claim per se with my list of quotes, I was simply showing him how a person could make a reasonable mistake and conclude that some dealers have the ability to count down a deck (or shoe) merely by being conversant with widely regarded blackjack literature.

If Mook is correct, as I suspect he is, that virtually no dealers count and deal at the same time, then I stand corrected. I just didn't want him (or anyone else for that matter) to believe that I simply "made up" the claim that those dealers exist. I was repeating what I thought was accurate information published by respected authors. Nothing more.

Mook,

You brought up the fact that floorpersons "don't have time to count." That is the sole reason behind my quoting Humble. Obviously his experience differed from your claim. (I'm not saying you aren't right 99% of the time on this incidentally.)

Also,

You're a good writer, and would be well-served to drop the "if it makes you feel betters" and the "ASSumes." I can admit when I'm wrong or have overstated the case, and don't need those devices to have the point brought home.

One last thing...thanks for correcting me (seriously). It's the only way I'll ever learn to separate the myth from reality in the world of gaming.

Jason

PS: My edition of Blackjack Attack is the second, paperback edition. I haven't bought the larger, hardback 3rd yet.

Anyway it ain't fair! To be fair the imformation that the midplay thing gets should also be seen by the players not just the casino. If it is no advantage to the casino then it will not be an advantage to the players. So why do they keep that info secret? It's obvious they do get an advantage from it.

If you feel this is not fair then I wonder how you feel about casino gambling in general...
I think it was Scarne who made the distinction between a cheat and a hustler : the hustler being one who offers incorrect odds to his / her own advantage . This is exactly what all casino games do openly . Because they are open about it , it is not considered cheating / illegal . I suspect that similar mentality applies in jurisdictions where shuffle-up techniques are allowed as countermeasures to skilled play . Is house advantage an unfair advantage ?
If the answer is no , then why should mindplay be any different ? Are the casinos not just trying to protect their Known Advantage ? Certainly this would be the casino's arguement .
The true reason behind these new technologies is to better target skilled players so they can be more efficiently abused or made unwelcome . This is called games protection . If preferential shuffling is an ethical technique for preserving the house advantage against skilled players that threaten the bottom line , then why couldn't the preservation of the house advantage be assured by simply increasing it whether the players at the table are skilled or not ? What casino ever had to prove that the player against which they have implemented counter measures was actually skilled ? What casino is required to give any explanation for excluding a player from blackjack ,or shuffling-up (in jurisdictions where this is allowed) ?
If you ask me , casinos would be even less ethical than they are now if it weren't for the efforts of guys like Kenny Uston who had the b@ll$ to call them on their bull$#!t
Dowser