• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Le Shuffler? (1 Viewer)

Following :)
First of all, @francoisLS congratulations on this nice project.
I'm French, so I can only welcome the initiative with a product that will be made in France :cool
I'll follow the progress of the project with interest.
I could be tempted by this product (for the shuffler function) which looks high quality, with a nice design and not too bulky.
Good luck with the production phase, which can sometimes be tricky ;)
Cordialement
Fran
 
Last edited:
francoisLS said:
Hi @buzzmonkey, I take good note of "LeShuffler Basique" ;-)
I will definitely keep the forum in the loop when working on it, this is clearly the ideal place to get feedback.
There is something to be said in defence of the dealing feature though.
I agree that it fits naturally with "social" card games, and many poker players I know told me it's not for them, they would not consider it etc... But continuous shufflers can provide super-fast turnaround between games, especially when just a few players are sitting.
Who knows? In a heads-up contest, you might find yourself tempted by LeShuffler Original's dealing feature?
À suivre...
Click to expand...
Hi Francois.

Very exciting to see LeShuffler coming onto the scene to challenge the existing shuffler market. I have often thought about how big the market opportunity is for that mid-range market segment, and I'm likely your exact target market.

I've been using the Shuffletech 1000 for ~2 years now so I'm probably your exact target customer. The Shuffletech is just good enough to save time over manual dealing, but I don't want to pay $2-3k for a used professional shuffler. A few thoughts on what I've seen of LeShuffler so far, and potential asks that could go into Le Basique:
  • Noise - this is THE biggest challenge of the ST1000. It sounds like marbles being shaken around in a tin can, and if you try to quiet it, it'll result in lots of jams and or mis-feeds. If you could provide a near silent model, that would be a huge gamehanged. From memory my lightly modified Shuffletech also sits around that 65-70dB level, which is annoying if you're sitting right next to it. The tone of noise also matters - low hum is a lot better than clicky/reverberation. It does sound like you could add some rubberized padding to the card feed out part of Le Shuffler (the metal teeth where the deck is returned) to lower the noise.
  • Speed - The "3 shuffle" setting of the ST1000 is not random enough, but the 7 shuffle is exceedingly slow. This combined with the noise has meant that playing partners refuse to sit next to it, and in one case preferred to manually deal vs have the noise of the shuffler.
  • Size/portability - I think this is maybe where you have the biggest gap in LeShuffler - it is rarely the case that the same player hosts our poker nights. So I have to lug the Shuffletech with me to whoever is hosting (childcare/space/availability all impact who hosts). While I admire the commitment to quality of product, I don't think a wood/steel construction is going to help with that portability. As noted above, I think you also need to offer an option with returns the cards to the top vs from the bottom. I don't know anyone who has it above the table who would mind removing/loading cards from the top, so it feels like top loading as the only load/unload option would solve for both use cases.
  • Reliability - Constant jamming and or lack of randomization are perennial challenges with the ST1000, along with completely absent customer support. The way you unload Le Shuffler looks like it could potentially expose the bottom card, which as mentioned above is also a challenge in poker.
  • Cost - Again while I admire the material and quality of construction choices, I think you may have missed the mark on price point to destroy Shuffletech. If you hit the $400-450 mark with a "shuffle only" version that was smaller/lighter/faster people would be ripping your arms off to order it.
  • Dealing - While I think your idea of dealing is great for beginner players, I do think a lot of poker players would prefer to manually deal vs have the machine deal. I think your idea is perfect for Blackjack (particularly reloading a partial deck) but has some issues for poker. For example - while I trust your RNG approach, there are definitely some poker players who would take issue with the lack of burn cards being dealt at the flop, turn, river phase.
My ideal replacement for the Shuffletech would be full-deck shuffle only, lower price, quieter, more portable, and more reliable. If there are any opportunities to be a beta tester for a Basique model, I would love the opportunity to (as long as I get to keep one haha).
 
WhaleShark said:
Hi Francois.

Very exciting to see LeShuffler coming onto the scene to challenge the existing shuffler market. I have often thought about how big the market opportunity is for that mid-range market segment, and I'm likely your exact target market.

I've been using the Shuffletech 1000 for ~2 years now so I'm probably your exact target customer. The Shuffletech is just good enough to save time over manual dealing, but I don't want to pay $2-3k for a used professional shuffler. A few thoughts on what I've seen of LeShuffler so far, and potential asks that could go into Le Basique:
  • Noise - this is THE biggest challenge of the ST1000. It sounds like marbles being shaken around in a tin can, and if you try to quiet it, it'll result in lots of jams and or mis-feeds. If you could provide a near silent model, that would be a huge gamehanged. From memory my lightly modified Shuffletech also sits around that 65-70dB level, which is annoying if you're sitting right next to it. The tone of noise also matters - low hum is a lot better than clicky/reverberation. It does sound like you could add some rubberized padding to the card feed out part of Le Shuffler (the metal teeth where the deck is returned) to lower the noise.
  • Speed - The "3 shuffle" setting of the ST1000 is not random enough, but the 7 shuffle is exceedingly slow. This combined with the noise has meant that playing partners refuse to sit next to it, and in one case preferred to manually deal vs have the noise of the shuffler.
  • Size/portability - I think this is maybe where you have the biggest gap in LeShuffler - it is rarely the case that the same player hosts our poker nights. So I have to lug the Shuffletech with me to whoever is hosting (childcare/space/availability all impact who hosts). While I admire the commitment to quality of product, I don't think a wood/steel construction is going to help with that portability. As noted above, I think you also need to offer an option with returns the cards to the top vs from the bottom. I don't know anyone who has it above the table who would mind removing/loading cards from the top, so it feels like top loading as the only load/unload option would solve for both use cases.
  • Reliability - Constant jamming and or lack of randomization are perennial challenges with the ST1000, along with completely absent customer support. The way you unload Le Shuffler looks like it could potentially expose the bottom card, which as mentioned above is also a challenge in poker.
  • Cost - Again while I admire the material and quality of construction choices, I think you may have missed the mark on price point to destroy Shuffletech. If you hit the $400-450 mark with a "shuffle only" version that was smaller/lighter/faster people would be ripping your arms off to order it.
  • Dealing - While I think your idea of dealing is great for beginner players, I do think a lot of poker players would prefer to manually deal vs have the machine deal. I think your idea is perfect for Blackjack (particularly reloading a partial deck) but has some issues for poker. For example - while I trust your RNG approach, there are definitely some poker players who would take issue with the lack of burn cards being dealt at the flop, turn, river phase.
My ideal replacement for the Shuffletech would be full-deck shuffle only, lower price, quieter, more portable, and more reliable. If there are any opportunities to be a beta tester for a Basique model, I would love the opportunity to (as long as I get to keep one haha).
Click to expand...
Hi @WhaleShark,
Thanks for taking the time to put together such a structured and insightful feedback.
Below my thoughts:
  • Noise: a difficult one for all the reasons you mention - at what distance do you take your reading (we measured 69.4-70.3 dB at a distance of 30 cm / 1ft but it decreased dramatically with distance), and importantly and in a way hard to quantify what "kind" of sound it is (pitch, duration, profile of the sound over time etc.). And a recording never seems to reflect the actual sound for some reason (if there is a sound engineer on the forum reading this, any insight is appreciated). Empirically, I don't think that sitting by LeShuffler creates any disturbance - a part from beta-testing it, I don't know how to make this more objective. Regarding the rubberized padding, we had this comment in this very forum and implemented it on the prototype (using TPU, a rubber-like material). You can see and hear it on the update video posted today here (at about 4:20) https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/francoissteiner/leshuffler/posts/4203185
    All the caveat above about sound recording apply, but I hope it helps.
  • Speed: the Alpha prototype shuffles a full deck in about 1:35 - 1:40 (the variation is linked to the random nature of the process). One of the previous working rigs was getting down to 1:00 - 1:05. Conservatively, the production model should be under 1:20. If using 2 decks, I don't think this is critical as long as you are well below 2 minutes - let me know what you think.
  • Size/portability: LeShuffler has a narrow footprint (15 cm - 6 in width) so does not take to much real estate on the table and is "transportable" but was not designed with portability in mind. In truth, most parts inside are in metal (you need as much rigidity as you can) so I went for a product that would look as good as possible and would be more sustainable. LeShuffler is designed almost as decorative furniture, something you would leave out in a living room between games because it is striking and intriguing, like a wood and metal sculpture. Or you could take it in your car if you are spending the weekend at friends. But I agree, it was not designed with portability in mind.
  • Picking cards from the top: one of the reasons why LeShuffler is under $900 when casino continuous shufflers are above $10k is that the number of moving parts has been dramatically reduced - in particular, LeShuffler relies on gravity to eject card. Not only gravity rarely fails, but it allows to do without the retaining springs, rods, ejectors etc. found in other machines and that massively increase complexity, production and maintenance costs. On the other hand, there is one known inconvenient of gravity: it tends to work always in the same direction ;). So returning the cards to the top would need a full redesign - in fairness it would end up being a different product.
  • Reliability: the fact that we use mathematical random number generation means that we don't rely on mixing the cards to creates randomness. There is minimal mechanical interaction, so the opportunity for jamming are reduced to a minimum. This contrasts with mechanical processes such as those used in the ST1000 for instance. For reference, in LeShuffler the path of card is as follows:
    • The card is picked from the loading tray by rubber rollers and slides into a carousel slot - once
    • It stays in place for a number of rotations, where pretty much nothing happens to it until...
    • The card slot is aligned to the exit, the exit gate opens and the cards slides off by gravity.
  • Randomness: the process used by LeShuffler guarantees 100% randomness by design.
  • Security (flashing the bottom card): in the video mentioned above, at about 4:40 I remove cards in the bottom compartment having half-open the "front gate" (this will be automatic in the production model). I think this solves the problem. @Bikshu mentioned in another thread the possibility of putting a cover card at the bottom of the tray before starting the shuffle. I don't think it is absolutely necessary, but in doubt this extra precaution makes the issue disappear.
  • Cost: I wish. Making a shuffler that works reliably with playing cards is surprisingly difficult. It requires rigidity and tight tolerances, and this is where the cost is, mostly. I plan to look into a project of "Shuffler Basique", following suggestions gathered on this forum, but I am not sure if the cost can be driven sufficiently low to make people rip my arms off, however desirable this may be ;-). To give you some perspective, when I was looking for an industrial design bureau to help me develop the project beyond proof of concept, one reputable company told me: "we don't do mechanical products anymore..."
  • Dealing: lots of interactions on this matter in this thread https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/leshuffler-a-competitor-for-shuffle-tech.123566. Finally regarding burn cards (although I agree with you that they are not strictly necessary with a continuous shuffler) I think it is really a matter of style and personal preference so it will definitely be an option, with a very transparent and intuitive interface allowing you to use LeShuffler either way without thinking about it.
Apologies for the long answer but I couldn't find a way to be shorter and address all the valid points you raised.
Any other thoughts much appreciated, thanks so much for taking the time.
 
Last edited:
francoisLS said:
Hi @Eriks,
I thought you might be interested by a video we posted today showing the Texas Hold'Em (dealing) feature here:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/francoissteiner/leshuffler/posts/4203185

Very happy to hear your thoughts on this if you have the time.
Click to expand...
I think it looks cool and I’m sure there’ll be people who will like it and use it. I don’t see myself using the dealer function though. It will take up a full seat and it feels like it’s gonna be getting in the way unless I limit the number of players to 6 on my octagon table.

Also, I really don’t mind the dealing part. The shuffling gets tedious but it doesn’t take me a minute+ to do it. I’m probably not the target group for this thing.
 
Hi @Eriks,

I guess ultimately it is a matter of style and personal preference. If I was to use LeShuffler as a shuffler only, I would put it on a lower side cart - no point taking real estate on the table - and use 2 decks so as to reduce dead time to zero.

Thanks again for sharing, extremely appreciated.
 
francoisLS said:
Hi @Eriks,

I guess ultimately it is a matter of style and personal preference. If I was to use LeShuffler as a shuffler only, I would put it on a lower side cart - no point taking real estate on the table - and use 2 decks so as to reduce dead time to zero.

Thanks again for sharing, extremely appreciated.
Click to expand...
Of course two decks, one being shuffled, one being played.
If you can invent someting small and flat, to be sitting on the table, the market is yours!

Edit: because, if you have to turn around to reach the shuffling machine on a cart, the present cheap chinese machines are unbeatable. If it breaks down, you get a new one, and it only reaches Shuffletech cost after 7-8 broken machines
Re-Edit: or 25 years
 
Last edited:
francoisLS said:
Hi @Eriks,

I guess ultimately it is a matter of style and personal preference. If I was to use LeShuffler as a shuffler only, I would put it on a lower side cart - no point taking real estate on the table - and use 2 decks so as to reduce dead time to zero.

Thanks again for sharing, extremely appreciated.
Click to expand...
I could possibly see myself using it like that. It’s just not that big of a problem to me. Why is it better than the shuffle tech? Would it be cheaper with a shuffle function only and not the dealer feature?
 
Eriks said:
I could possibly see myself using it like that. It’s just not that big of a problem to me. Why is it better than the shuffle tech? Would it be cheaper with a shuffle function only and not the dealer feature?
Click to expand...
I'm not Francois, but from everything I've seen the dealer function is just a software feature added on top of the shuffle functionality. So it wouldn't really be any cheaper without the dealer feature. He said something to this effect in one of the other threads.

Some key ways I can see that it would be better than the shuffletech are: less wear on the cards, as they're manipulated fewer times per use (into a carousel once, then falls out via gravity so not even run through rollers again, vs riffle shuffled 7 times per deal), more actual randomness (based on a hardware RNG solution which provides actual random numbers, from earlier discussion), and potentially easier/less need for maintenance for the same reason as the lowered wear on your setups.

The one benefit to using the dealer as opposed to full deck shuffling is you only need to wait for the time it takes to intake the used cards from the last hand before it's ready to deal again, as it doesn't have to actually shuffle anything, just fill the drum. Though as many have mentioned using two decks eliminates the wait for the most part also.
 
demonnic said:
I'm not Francois, but from everything I've seen the dealer function is just a software feature added on top of the shuffle functionality. So it wouldn't really be any cheaper without the dealer feature. He said something to this effect in one of the other threads.

Some key ways I can see that it would be better than the shuffletech are: less wear on the cards, as they're manipulated fewer times per use (into a carousel once, then falls out via gravity so not even run through rollers again, vs riffle shuffled 7 times per deal), more actual randomness (based on a hardware RNG solution which provides actual random numbers, from earlier discussion), and potentially easier/less need for maintenance for the same reason as the lowered wear on your setups.

The one benefit to using the dealer as opposed to full deck shuffling is you only need to wait for the time it takes to intake the used cards from the last hand before it's ready to deal again, as it doesn't have to actually shuffle anything, just fill the drum. Though as many have mentioned using two decks eliminates the wait for the most part also.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I suppose another advantage over the shuffle tech would be if it can handle bridge size cards as well as poker size (?) @francoisLS

The jamming issues and continuous need for servicing (feels like one shouldn’t be a tech dummy, which I am, to comfortably own shuffle techs) along with noise and poker size only, are why I’ve never even considered buying a shuffle tech. If I’m spending that kind of money on something I’m perfectly capable of and fairly ok with doing myself, it better run like clockwork. I guess it comes down to investment vs reward. We’re all very different there, I mean some can justify getting a deckmate even.

If Leshuffler can operate very smoothly without the shuffle tech problems, I might be interested, but would still be on the fence. I don’t really like the size of it. I’m trying to picture it at my game in a rather tight room having already a bunch of small tables for drinks in the way inbetween/behind chairs. I don’t know where I’d put the thing.

It is a cool product, in my mind I just default back to ”fuck it, I’ll shuffle myself” when considering all the practicals, as well as cost. I am very interested to see how this developes though.
 
francoisLS said:
Hi @WhaleShark,
Thanks for taking the time to put together such a structured and insightful feedback.
Below my thoughts:
  • Noise: a difficult one for all the reasons you mention - at what distance do you take your reading (we measured 69.4-70.3 dB at a distance of 30 cm / 1ft but it decreased dramatically with distance), and importantly and in a way hard to quantify what "kind" of sound it is (pitch, duration, profile of the sound over time etc.). And a recording never seems to reflect the actual sound for some reason (if there is a sound engineer on the forum reading this, any insight is appreciated). Empirically, I don't think that sitting by LeShuffler creates any disturbance - a part from beta-testing it, I don't know how to make this more objective. Regarding the rubberized padding, we had this comment in this very forum and implemented it on the prototype (using TPU, a rubber-like material). You can see and hear it on the update video posted today here (at about 4:20) https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/francoissteiner/leshuffler/posts/4203185
    All the caveat above about sound recording apply, but I hope it helps.
  • Speed: the Alpha prototype shuffles a full deck in about 1:35 - 1:40 (the variation is linked to the random nature of the process). One of the previous working rigs was getting down to 1:00 - 1:05. Conservatively, the production model should be under 1:20. If using 2 decks, I don't think this is critical as long as you are well below 2 minutes - let me know what you think.
  • Size/portability: LeShuffler has a narrow footprint (15 cm - 6 in width) so does not take to much real estate on the table and is "transportable" but was not designed with portability in mind. In truth, most parts inside are in metal (you need as much rigidity as you can) so I went for a product that would look as good as possible and would be more sustainable. LeShuffler is designed almost as decorative furniture, something you would leave out in a living room between games because it is striking and intriguing, as a sculpture wood. Or you could take it in your car if you are spending the weekend at friends. But I agree, it was not designed with portability in mind.
  • Picking cards from the top: one of the reasons why LeShuffler is under $900 when casino continuous shufflers are above $10k is that the number of moving parts has been dramatically reduced - in particular, LeShuffler relies on gravity to eject card. Not only gravity rarely fails, but it allows to do without the retaining springs, rods, ejectors etc. found in other machines and that massively increase complexity, production and maintenance costs. On the other hand, there is one known inconvenient of gravity: it tends to work always in the same direction ;). So returning the cards to the top would need a full redesign - in fairness it would end up being a different product.
  • Reliability: the fact that we use mathematical random number generation means that we don't rely on mixing the cards to creates randomness. There is minimal mechanical interaction, so the opportunity for jamming are reduced to a minimum. This contrasts with mechanical processes such as those used in the ST1000 for instance. For reference, in LeShuffler the path of card is as follows:
    • The card is picked from the loading tray by rubber rollers and slides into a carousel slot - once
    • It stays in place for a number of rotations, where pretty much nothing happens to it until...
    • The card slot is aligned to the exit, the exit gate opens and the cards slides off by gravity.
  • Randomness: the process used by LeShuffler guarantees 100% randomness by design.
  • Security (flashing the bottom card): in the video mentioned above, at about 4:40 I remove cards in the bottom compartment having half-open the "front gate" (this will be automatic in the production model). I think this solves the problem. @Bikshu mentioned in another thread the possibility of putting a cover card at the bottom of the tray before starting the shuffle. I don't think it is absolutely necessary, but in doubt this extra precaution makes the issue disappear.
  • Cost: I wish. Making a shuffler that works reliably with playing cards is surprisingly difficult. It requires rigidity and tight tolerances, and this is where the cost is, mostly. I plan to look into a project of "Shuffler Basique", following suggestions gathered on this forum, but I am not sure if the cost can be driven sufficiently low to make people rip my arms off, however desirable this may be ;-). To give you some perspective, when I was looking for an industrial design bureau to help me develop the project beyond proof of concept, one reputable company told me: "we don't do mechanical products anymore..."
Dealing: lots of interactions on this matter in this thread https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/leshuffler-a-competitor-for-shuffle-tech.123566
Separately (although I agree with you that burn cards are not strictly necessary with a continuous shuffler) I think it is really a matter of style and personal preference so it will definitely be an option, with a very transparent and intuitive interface allowing you to use LeShuffler either way without thinking about it.

Apologies for the long answer but I couldn't find a way to be shorter and address all the valid points you raised.
Any other thoughts much appreciated, thanks so much for taking the time.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for the comprehensive reply Francois. That all makes sense, and it's very clear you've thought long and hard about the key features you want to bring to market! It definitely seems like reliability, randomness, and build quality shine out compared to the competition.

One thing I forgot to ask - how much does Le Shuffler weigh?

I'll be very interested to watch along and wish you and the team success for the launch! It's clear you care about feedback and making the best product you can.

The randomness alone would be enough for me to consider it if/when my Shuffletech breaks down, as I definitely found that pretty sub-standard at least on the 3 riffle setting:

 
WhaleShark said:
Thanks very much for the comprehensive reply Francois. That all makes sense, and it's very clear you've thought long and hard about the key features you want to bring to market! It definitely seems like reliability, randomness, and build quality shine out compared to the competition.

One thing I forgot to ask - how much does Le Shuffler weigh?

I'll be very interested to watch along and wish you and the team success for the launch! It's clear you care about feedback and making the best product you can.

The randomness alone would be enough for me to consider it if/when my Shuffletech breaks down, as I definitely found that pretty sub-standard at least on the 3 riffle setting:

Click to expand...
Thanks @WhaleShark for the feedback, also for the video, really informative. I ran a quick analysis on the shuffles shown in the video, I think you are right in saying that the 3-riffle does not provide proper randomisation. We could ascertain that with more data if you are interested. (In any case the issue remains that there is no way to assess the level of randomisation or its consistency - as it depends on a mechanical process, it is essentially analog and may fluctuate over time based on the wear and tear of components, the physical characteristics of the cards and probably other physical factors.
And to answer your question, our current prototype weighs about 6kg or 13 lbs - I imagine the finished product will be about the same.
 
francoisLS said:
Thanks @WhaleShark for the feedback, also for the video, really informative. I ran a quick analysis on the shuffles shown in the video, I think you are right in saying that the 3-riffle does not provide proper randomisation. We could ascertain that with more data if you are interested. (In any case the issue remains that there is no way to assess the level of randomisation or its consistency - as it depends on a mechanical process, it is essentially analog and may fluctuate over time based on the wear and tear of components, the physical characteristics of the cards and probably other physical factors.
And to answer your question, our current prototype weighs about 6kg or 13 lbs - I imagine the finished product will be about the same.
Click to expand...
No problem! Yeah now I always wash the cards and use the 7 shuffle mode - but as you say there's no guarantee of randomization. I think that's likely too heavy for my use case (carrying it to other people's houses) but I'll keep an eye out if you ever go the Basique direction! Best of luck with the launch!
 
demonnic said:
I'm not Francois, but from everything I've seen the dealer function is just a software feature added on top of the shuffle functionality. So it wouldn't really be any cheaper without the dealer feature. He said something to this effect in one of the other threads.

Some key ways I can see that it would be better than the shuffletech are: less wear on the cards, as they're manipulated fewer times per use (into a carousel once, then falls out via gravity so not even run through rollers again, vs riffle shuffled 7 times per deal), more actual randomness (based on a hardware RNG solution which provides actual random numbers, from earlier discussion), and potentially easier/less need for maintenance for the same reason as the lowered wear on your setups.

The one benefit to using the dealer as opposed to full deck shuffling is you only need to wait for the time it takes to intake the used cards from the last hand before it's ready to deal again, as it doesn't have to actually shuffle anything, just fill the drum. Though as many have mentioned using two decks eliminates the wait for the most part also.
Click to expand...
Hi @demonnic and @Eriks,
@demonnic says he's not me, but I am not sure I believe him ;) because I couldn't possibly make a more accurate comment on this subject.
Thank you both for your contribution, much appreciated.
 
WhaleShark said:
No problem! Yeah now I always wash the cards and use the 7 shuffle mode - but as you say there's no guarantee of randomization. I think that's likely too heavy for my use case (carrying it to other people's houses) but I'll keep an eye out if you ever go the Basique direction! Best of luck with the launch!
Click to expand...
Thanks @WhaleShark!
I think with a wash + 7-riffle mode you're safe.
 
Eriks said:
Makes sense. I suppose another advantage over the shuffle tech would be if it can handle bridge size cards as well as poker size (?) @francoisLS

The jamming issues and continuous need for servicing (feels like one shouldn’t be a tech dummy, which I am, to comfortably own shuffle techs) along with noise and poker size only, are why I’ve never even considered buying a shuffle tech. If I’m spending that kind of money on something I’m perfectly capable of and fairly ok with doing myself, it better run like clockwork. I guess it comes down to investment vs reward. We’re all very different there, I mean some can justify getting a deckmate even.

If Leshuffler can operate very smoothly without the shuffle tech problems, I might be interested, but would still be on the fence. I don’t really like the size of it. I’m trying to picture it at my game in a rather tight room having already a bunch of small tables for drinks in the way inbetween/behind chairs. I don’t know where I’d put the thing.

It is a cool product, in my mind I just default back to ”fuck it, I’ll shuffle myself” when considering all the practicals, as well as cost. I am very interested to see how this developes though.
Click to expand...
Hi @Eriks, definitely keep an eye on this thread, I will keep you all posted.
(And I confirm that LeShuffler uses indifferently poker and bridge size cards, only difference in performance is that narrow cards are about 10% faster)
 
francoisLS said:
Hi @Eriks, definitely keep an eye on this thread, I will keep you all posted.
(And I confirm that LeShuffler uses indifferently poker and bridge size cards, only difference in performance is that narrow cards are about 10% faster)
Click to expand...
I’m constantly timing our self dealers to try and get their numbers up. They hate it when I bring out the stopwatch at the poker game.

This is sarcasm, a lot of it. Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s an indicator of performance. I never need a deck of shuffled cards in less than 20 seconds, stat!!
 
ekricket said:
I’m constantly timing our self dealers to try and get their numbers up. They hate it when I bring out the stopwatch at the poker game.

This is sarcasm, a lot of it. Just because you can measure something doesn’t mean it’s an indicator of performance. I never need a deck of shuffled cards in less than 20 seconds, stat!!
Click to expand...
When tournament gets down to 2 or 3 people it really comes in handy having a deck shuffled in 40 seconds. Just personal opinion of course!
 
Hi @francoisLS,

I have some questions about the shufflers capacity in the case of 8 deck blackjack.

Does the card carousel hold more than one deck like up to 416 cards? If not please consider that for the next model you make.

If I wanted to play with 8 decks would I just tell the shuffler to do a basic for one deck then eject the deck, do that 7 more times for the remaining and shove the decks into a shoe? Is there a faster to way to shuffle 8 decks?

In current casino's they have those continuous shufflers, where after a few hands they re enter the done hands back into the shuffler. Can this do the same where after some the hands are done I just readd them to the shuffler or do I need to wait until all the cards are used up?

Spartan
 
Hi @spartan037

LeShuffler is a continuous shuffler with a capacity of 54 cards, so it does exactly what you mention in you last paragraph - with one deck only.
This is very handy for poker and all games where you don't deal all the cards - reloading is very fast between games.

LeShuffler can also fully randomise up to 108 cards, but in shuffle-only mode. It works this way:
  • Put up to 54 cards in the tray,
  • LeShuffler loads them,
  • Repeat the above until all the cards are in (max 108)
  • When either the maximum of 108 cards is reached or at the press the "shuffle" button, LeShuffler releases the randomised cards.
Please note that the procedure you describe, if I understand it right (shuffling 8 decks one at a time then putting them together) would produce 8 randomised decks of 52 cards on top of one another, which is not equivalent to a "super-deck" of 8 x 52 = 416 randomised cards.

What you seem to be looking for, continuous shufflers than can handle 6 or 8 decks such as the one2six, iDeal, Shuffle King etc. are bigger and more complex machines, in a wholly different price range (and generally not available for private players).
An alternative is Chinese-made multi-deck continuous shufflers at about $5,000-$6,000. I only know of one person who bought such a machine and it was defective. The manufacturer refunded him in the end, though.

Hope this answers you question, let me know if you think of anything else.

Best,

François
 
francoisLS said:
What you seem to be looking for, continuous shufflers than can handle 6 or 8 decks such as the one2six, iDeal, Shuffle King etc. are bigger and more complex machines, in a wholly different price range (and generally not available for private players).
An alternative is Chinese-made multi-deck continuous shufflers at about $5,000-$6,000. I only know of one person who bought such a machine and it was defective. The manufacturer refunded him in the end, though.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in spending anywhere near that price. Your shuffler for one was under $1000. I was just curious how close your shuffler came to being a continuous shuffler. If it could hold a larger capacity of cards it probably could be.

francoisLS said:
  • When either the maximum of 108 cards is reached or at the press the "shuffle" button, LeShuffler releases the randomised cards.
Please note that the procedure you describe, if I understand it right (shuffling 8 decks one at a time then putting them together) would produce 8 randomised decks of 52 cards on top of one another, which is not equivalent to a "super-deck" of 8 x 52 = 416 randomised cards.
Click to expand...

Can I produce 4 randomized decks of 104 cards in each deck? Then I could play 2 deck blackjack. lol

Thank you for your response.
 
spartan037 said:
I am not interested in spending anywhere near that price. Your shuffler for one was under $1000. I was just curious how close your shuffler came to being a continuous shuffler. If it could hold a larger capacity of cards it probably could be.



Can I produce 4 randomized decks of 104 cards in each deck? Then I could play 2 deck blackjack. lol

Thank you for your response.
Click to expand...
It can only randomize one deck at a time. so you can shuffle them both together by hand to start. Then once you are down one deck, put it in the shuffler, it takes about 60 seconds to shuffle it and in that time you will just be dealing hands. Then you can take the 52 cards out and put them in. He has multiple videos on his kickstarter. It won’t be a proper continuous shuffler, but it could work as one.
 
jayfiggy said:
It can only randomize one deck at a time. so you can shuffle them both together by hand to start. Then once you are down one deck, put it in the shuffler, it takes about 60 seconds to shuffle it and in that time you will just be dealing hands. Then you can take the 52 cards out and put them in. He has multiple videos on his kickstarter. It won’t be a proper continuous shuffler, but it could work as one.
Click to expand...
Hi @jayfiggy and @spartan037,
Just a quick precision to complement @jayfiggy 's answer: LeShuffler can randomise up to two decks (108 cards exactly) at a time, in shuffle-only mode (no dealing).
Best,
François
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom