SixSpeedFury
Full House
Would adding sound dampening materials help with quieting the shuffletech?
I'd say it takes it down a few db and rolls off a lot of the high frequencies, so the shuffling sounds "duller" if that makes sense. Having it below the level of the table in the side cart should help too. I made a video to show the difference between having the cabinet door open and closed, which is semi representative of how much dampening there is right now.Turned out great! You mentioned the improvement noise-wise. How much of a noise reduction would you say putting it in the cabinet has been? If it’s significant, I’ll have to do something similar with mine - I’ve just been using mine on top of a side table, but the noise of it is pretty disturbing I find.
I used that triangular dampening foam on my build awhile ago and I feel like it does work to help.Would adding sound dampening materials help with quieting the shuffletech?
That makes sense. I was resisting the idea of insulating the top door so I wouldn't miss seeing a jam if one occurred. But I suppose I would hear it anyway, haha. Did you have your shuffler in a cabinet as well or do you use it free standing?I experimented with noise dampening materials with my Shuffletech. I opened up one of my Shuffletechs and applied dynamat to the interior surface of the casing. It helped a bit.
Most of the sound comes thru the top of the unit. I applied dynamat to the underside of the top door and that helped the most, but it was a bit ugly.
Easiest and most effective is just to lay a mousepad on top of the machine as it runs if the noise bugs you too much. That will eliminate alot of the noise.
For me, once you're playing, and there's a tv or music in the background and people are socializing and having conversations, the noise of the shuffler fades away as minor background noise.
I actually mounted into my table.That makes sense. I was resisting the idea of insulating the top door so I wouldn't miss seeing a jam if one occurred. But I suppose I would hear it anyway, haha. Did you have your shuffler in a cabinet as well or do you use it free standing?
I know this is a pretty old thread, but @RainmanTrail got me interested as I just bought a Shuffletech and was interested to compare the 3 and 7 modes, and also washing vs not washing on both of those modes. After our first game last night a few players reported getting the same starting hand a few times in a row when on the 3 mode, and we had much fewer complaints once we switched to the 7 mode.If you're really interested, I wrote a paper in grad school about deck shuffling as it relates to card randomization (see attachment). One way to measure a deck's randomness is to count the number of rising sequences in the deck. If you were to place the cards in order, and numbered them 1 through 52, then riffle shuffled the deck one time and checked the order of the cards, you might find that they are ordered something like this:
27 28 29 1 2 30 31 3 4 32 5 33 6
34 7 35 8 36 9 37 10 38 11 39 12 13
14 40 15 41 16 17 42 43 18 44 19 20 45
46 47 48 49 21 50 51 22 23 24 25 52 26
In the above deck, you can clearly see the two "rising sequences" with the first starting at 27,28,29 and going up to 52 and the second starting at 1,2 and going up through 26. This deck would obviously be extremely exploitable as it's only been shuffled once, but it's helpful for understanding how randomness manifests itself in a deck. The paper I wrote below goes into greater detail, with plotted distributions and a fair bit of coding, about the rising sequence distributions in randomized decks. In short, if you were to take 10,000 completely randomized decks, and counted the number of rising sequences found in each deck, you would find that there were 26.5 rising sequences on average, with a standard deviation of 2.1.
In the 'Shuffle Tech Shuffler' video below where they demo the machine and show the deck after it has been shuffled (starting at 2:00), pay attention to the distribution of the clubs. You'll notice that the deck has 6c7c out front, then you don't see another club until the back half of the deck where you find a few more sequences (TcQc, 4c5c, 8c9c), and that's just from what we can see. You'll also notice the clustering of other suits as he passes through the deck. There are quite a few cards that we can't see as he's just quickly running through the deck though. He seems to think the results are good here and is showing the "randomized" deck that it produced, but someone knowing what to pay attention to could take advantage of this shuffle. Magicians use rising sequences to their advantage when performing card tricks.
You wouldn't be able to gain a huge edge, but you could gain a measurable one. Imagine if you knew that a deck was perfectly ordered prior to the shuffle, and you knew the shuffle resulted in chunked distributions like you see in this video. You could exploit the deck by knowing that straight draws and flush draws would come in at a higher frequency than they would if the deck were in truly random order. Two hearts on the flop would yield a higher probability of being followed by third heart in a deck with too few rising sequences than they would in a deck with 26 rising sequences.
The side tray on the bottom?I know this is a pretty old thread, but @RainmanTrail got me interested as I just bought a Shuffletech and was interested to compare the 3 and 7 modes, and also washing vs not washing on both of those modes. After our first game last night a few players reported getting the same starting hand a few times in a row when on the 3 mode, and we had much fewer complaints once we switched to the 7 mode.
Here's my results (apologies for the slowness, it's harder to do one handed than I thought!):
I couldn't easily film with one hand while properly washing the deck, but here's the outcome:
View attachment 954724
So I think pretty definitive that washing makes a massive difference - it looks like there was a bit of same suited connectors happening with the wash + 3, but almost none with the wash + 7. Both decks were sorted A, 2, 3... K suited before the wash/shuffles.
Also fun tip - if you want a very quick way to reduce the noise of the shuffler, set it to top load only and stick a dish sponge into the card tray.
FWIW, I bet you’d see similar results if you looked at an unwashed ruffle riffle box riffle cut, as seen in a casino near you. Randomizing cards just isn’t something you can do quickly.I know this is a pretty old thread, but @RainmanTrail got me interested as I just bought a Shuffletech and was interested to compare the 3 and 7 modes, and also washing vs not washing on both of those modes. After our first game last night a few players reported getting the same starting hand a few times in a row when on the 3 mode, and we had much fewer complaints once we switched to the 7 mode.
Here's my results (apologies for the slowness, it's harder to do one handed than I thought!):
I couldn't easily film with one hand while properly washing the deck, but here's the outcome:
View attachment 954724
So I think pretty definitive that washing makes a massive difference - it looks like there was a bit of same suited connectors happening with the wash + 3, but almost none with the wash + 7. Both decks were sorted A, 2, 3... K suited before the wash/shuffles.
Also fun tip - if you want a very quick way to reduce the noise of the shuffler, set it to top load only and stick a dish sponge into the card tray.
5 riffles, strip cut, 2 riffles doesn't take that long.Randomizing cards just isn’t something you can do quickly.
You’re preaching to the choir. Tell that to Big Casino.5 riffles, strip cut, 2 riffles doesn't take that long.
Yup - behold:The side tray on the bottom?
I heard a sound dampening material at the top does help. I have not done it but remember reading someone else that did with good results.Yup - behold:
View attachment 954815
I've ordered some acoustic foam to see if it creates better options. Going to experiment with a thin layer inside the top cover too.
I’ll dig out the lab coat and safety goggles. Be right back…I saw these love Fournier cards. Anyone tried Fournier bridge in these things?
Post in thread 'Shuffletech ST-100 Review'I saw these love Fournier cards. Anyone tried Fournier bridge in these things?
To be fair I did one shuffle on the “3” setting as my “7” setting is broken.Post in thread 'Shuffletech ST-100 Review'
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/shuffletech-st-100-review.81264/post-1910546
At $6/hand or more even saving 10 seconds over 30 hands an hour means hundreds of dollars per day. No doubt these machines pay for themselves for the volumes that casinos do.You’re preaching to the choir. Tell that to Big Casino.
I may have been misunderstood. I think my rant here was really that riffle riffle box riffle cut - you know, the shuffle every casino does when they’re hand shuffling and/or when the auto-shuffler breaks down - isn’t sufficiently randomizing cards.At $6/hand or more even saving 10 seconds over 30 hands and hour means hundreds of dollars per day. No doubt these machines pay for themselves for the volumes that casinos do.
I thought this was meant for a blackjack shoe not one deckThis has turned up on shuffle tech’s website. Anyone got experience of using one? Less than half the price of the ST-1000.
View attachment 1143313
Just found a video on YouTube. Looks cumbersome and I think it would be just as quick to shuffle manually.
Looks like it would be a pain to use. I’d end up launching it halfway through a gameI thought this was meant for a blackjack shoe not one deck
I also can't see how it could any real internals to actually shuffle a shoe vs. just combining the two halves. That means in order to get sufficient randomization of the cards you would have to run it though the stupid thing like 7 times. How is that worth $200?!?Looks like it would be a pain to use. I’d end up launching it halfway through a game
Yeah just looks like a more expensive version of the cheap plastic shufflers you can get for a tenth of the price.I also can't see how it could any real internals to actually shuffle a shoe vs. just combining the two halves. That means in order to get sufficient randomization of the cards you would have to run it though the stupid thing like 7 times. How is that worth $200?!?