Shuffletech (built in table for a home game) (1 Viewer)

[Rodog123]

So I played my first home game with the auto shuffler built into the table - super posh. I noticed the board hit trips more times in a 5 hour session vs hand shuffling. It was definitely noticeable. Has anyone else experienced this or is this just me? Anyone run out analysis on built in shufflers. I guess I'm old school and prefer the hand shuffle.

 

[quintooo]

are you doing 3 or 7 shuffles?

check this thread out: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/shuffle-tech-news.38222/page-13#post-1910812

fwiw, I play in @TheRealTeddyKGB's game, he uses the 7 shuffle setting and it seems random enough for me.

 

[TheDuke]

The mechanics of a shuffletech are pretty rudimentary. There's no way for a user to use the machine to stack a deck. It just mimics a hand shuffle.

Suggest using the 7 riffle option but also give the deck a quick wash before putting it in the shuffler.

 

[CraigT78]

@Lil Tuna

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

The mechanics of a shuffletech are pretty rudimentary. There's no way for a user to use the machine to stack a deck. It just mimics a hand shuffle.

Suggest using the 7 riffle option but also give the deck a quick wash before putting it in the shuffler.

Not sure if user meant someone was actively cheating, more like it wasn't shuffling correctly (not as random). I could be wrong, but I agree with your no cheating though.

 

[Rodog123]

I will inquire on the 7 riffle option. I just noticed more trips and flushes on the board vs hand dealing. I will check out that link.

 

[eightyWon]

I'm no statistician but is a 5 hour session a big enough sample size to really draw any concrete conclusions from?

 

[upNdown]

I'm no statistician but is a 5 hour session a big enough sample size to really draw any concrete conclusions from?

Of course not. But I’ve played TWO sessions with shuffletechs and I can assure you that they’re 100% random.

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

Of course not. But I’ve played TWO sessions with shuffletechs and I can assure you that they’re 100% random.

That can't be because once, when I played with a shuffle tech, I lost to a full house in like the first orbit and I've never lost to a full house in the first orbit when hand shuffling!
There's gotta be something weird going on with this unholy machine!!!

Or it might be this:

Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed. Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias.

Your brain is constantly trying to find connections between things that are happening to you to predict future outcomes.
That is awesome when it's black clouds forming on the horizon and you running to your house because in the past you've gotten wet when you didn't.

It's not that helpful when it's trying to find causes for random occurrences like how your team never wins when you didn't shave that day.

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

We didn't play poker tonight so I had nothing better to do than to break out these 16 decks & conduct an experiment:

Sequenced them the exact same way:
A-K, A-K, A-K& A-K.

Then I put them straight into my Shuffletech set to 7 WITHOUT washing them first & removed them and DID NOT perform a cut. Here are the results:

I know this is an extremely small sample size so I won't draw any conclusions even though I have some. I will say after handling 7 different brands of playing cards in a short amount of time I did prefer the feel of the Faded Spade 2.0 the most & the Copags the least...

 

[Machine]

Tracking the is interesting

 

[Rodog123]

I'm no statistician but is a 5 hour session a big enough sample size to really draw any concrete conclusions from?

Agreed, not a big enough sample size.

 

[4SUMERZ]

Poker hands are a crap shoot, self dealing, a dedicated dealer, shuffletech, etc. We play a 4.5 hour game, self dealing 8 players, and 90% of the time, it's a full house being the high hand of the night. Our past 3 sessions, 4 jacks over a full house, (j-J hole cards) and the following session, 4 Kings, 3 kings community cards, and then a low straight flush, hit on the river card.
We may go another 6 months before we get another high hand of the night, that's higher than a full house.

 

[MeridianFC]

We didn't play poker tonight so I had nothing better to do than to break out these 16 decks & conduct an experiment:

View attachment 1053627

View attachment 1053631

Sequenced them the exact same way:
A-K, A-K, A-K& A-K.

View attachment 1053633

Then I put them straight into my Shuffletech set to 7 WITHOUT washing them first & removed them and DID NOT perform a cut. Here are the results:

View attachment 1053635
View attachment 1053636
View attachment 1053638
View attachment 1053639

I know this is an extremely small sample size so I won't draw any conclusions even though I have some. I will say after handling 7 different brands of playing cards in a short amount of time I did prefer the feel of the Faded Spade 2.0 the most & the Copags the least...

It's like I can see the Matrix!

 

[ThrowBack]

People say the same thing about online. It’s “not random enough” or that weird things happen

In a hand shuffled knight we have had 4 full houses in a hand, two even ace high straights, quads, and multi trip vs trips in a night

Nutty things DO happen