The Proper Shuffle (1 Viewer)

Give me the Cliff's Notes... Makes me subscribe to "read more".

It kind of goes into the nuance of the riffle, and things most of us already know. Such as, a "perfect" riffle doesn't randomize the deck, it just reorders it. So, the article uses the term "an ordinary, and imperfect, riffle" is really what is needed to get randomization. They also reference the well known 7x riffle to get a randomized deck (and agree that it is the minimum requirement). Riffling any less, such as the casino-three, will still result in patterned results.

And they acknowledge that casinos don't do 7 for the sake of time:

In other words, casinos want to minimize the amount of time dealers spend shuffling cards in order to maximize the amount of time gamblers spend gambling. To facilitate this, casinos establish protocols for shuffling decks of different sizes, set time limits for the shuffles and conduct audits to ensure dealers adhere to the standards.

Basically, a rosy worded blow-off of the standards needed to achieve randomization because - well - casinos want to keep people playing. So it's OK if they cut a few corners.
 
It kind of goes into the nuance of the riffle, and things most of us already know. Such as, a "perfect" riffle doesn't randomize the deck, it just reorders it. So, the article uses the term "an ordinary, and imperfect, riffle" is really what is needed to get randomization. They also reference the well known 7x riffle to get a randomized deck (and agree that it is the minimum requirement). Riffling any less, such as the casino-three, will still result in patterned results.
And they acknowledge that casinos don't do 7 for the sake of time:
Basically, a rosy worded blow-off of the standards needed to achieve randomization because - well - casinos want to keep people playing. So it's OK if they cut a few corners.

They don't mention the box - I'm sure they helps the randomizing at least a bit.
But realistically, (for holdem anyway) you see the 5 community cards, your 2 cards, and maybe another opponent's cards? So if you're only aware of ten of the cards on average, reordering them with the other 40ish cards and then dealing somewhere out of the middle of that - it seems sufficient to me.
 
Riffling any less, such as the casino-three, will still result in patterned results.
Don’t most casinos throw a strip in there? I know we did (riffle, top/bottom/top/bottom strip, riffle, riffle).

Regardless, casinos wash the cards before putting them in play so they start out randomized. Finding the patterns in pre-randomized decks likely isn’t much of a security concern :)
 
My guys aren't good enough to recognize patterns, so riffle, riffle, box, riffle works for me.
 
Timely. Just yesterday at my parent's house we were playing Uno lamenting how it's a bitch to get rid of color streaks. I mentioned how a regular deck takes seven imperfect shuffles to randomize. Seven would still do it since the colors are essentially suits. Problem is it's played with a double deck and you're often having to reshuffle mid game. Between grandma's arthritis and a six year old with no concept of how to shuffle that left three able bodies to pretty much function as continuous shuffling machines all afternoon.
 
Truepokerdealer teaches the wash as part of the shuffling procedure.


I'd say including a wash in every shuffle is overkill, but a very through wash is a must with a fresh, ordered deck. Probably also can't hurt to do it once every few hands or so.
 
My guys aren't good enough to recognize patterns, so riffle, riffle, box, riffle works for me.

I sort my decks after every game. After sorting, if I use that pattern and then check the deck there might be two consecutive cards a couple times throughout the deck and those could be consecutive just out of randomness putting them back together.

Works for me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Truepokerdealer teaches the wash as part of the shuffling procedure.


I'd say including a wash in every shuffle is overkill, but a very through wash is a must with a fresh, ordered deck. Probably also can't hurt to do it once every few hands or so.

We definitely wash throughout the night at my games. Probably not every few hands, but maybe once an hour or so.
 
Truepokerdealer teaches the wash as part of the shuffling procedure.


I'd say including a wash in every shuffle is overkill, but a very through wash is a must with a fresh, ordered deck. Probably also can't hurt to do it once every few hands or so.
Our dealer procedure includes a wash at the beginning of every new blind level.
 
If you shuffle a bunch of times, many many people have a tendency to drop one set of cards (either from their right hand or left hand) slightly first consistently. A true box just gets rid of that little section of cards that can consistently get dropped first, so you don't have the same 4-6 cards on the bottom. The box shouldn't be an integral part of a mixing shuffle, because it's possible to leave the middle section of cards in nearly the same order.

When it comes to security, it's actually better to have some inconsistencies between dealers.

In this video, he calls the strip a box (different places use different terms) but it is indeed a small strip from the top. In Blackjack, you turn the cards toward you so the players can't see any cards when doing the opening shuffles. In poker, away from the dealer.

The strip (from the top) also has the ability to move cards from the top, to the bottom where a slight of hand dealer could deal bottoms. I don't love his 'box/strip' in this video.

A more adequate shuffle would be to riffle, riffle, top and bottom strip, then riffle, then one handed cut.

Open a brand new deck of cards, or sort your current deck, and do this shuffle multiple times. It's likely you don't have more than a few sets of cards still in order. I do agree at the beginning, after the cards are inspected face up, and face down for imperfections, they should be washed for 30-45 seconds. Then the standard shuffle implemented.

If you're good at doing the riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, then you shouldn't need to wash the cards very often. However, it should still be done every so often. @BGinGA said he does it every blind increase. That's probably a pretty good time domain for home games. Our blackjack tables, carni games, pit games only do it during the opening procedure when cards are first placed on the table. The poker room does it every 4 uses or so with the same deck. But they are also placed in an automatic shuffler between hands. (standard 2 deck rotation)
 
When I dealt at the casino at a table that didn't have an auto shuffler the procedure was:

Wash, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle once more, and then cut.


In home games now, I'll wash the cards usually on my deal if we're just using one deck. If we have a 2 deck game going, washing is usually not in the cards given the speed of the game.
 
Is there a machine that will shuffle only one deck? All the ones I have seen advertised say 6 decks. Will one deck still work in these? Do these machines even work well? All the ones on Amazon have crappy reviews...

We use two decks - red and blue - and alternate so that the next dealer can shuffle while the current hand is in play.
 
Y
Is there a machine that will shuffle only one deck? All the ones I have seen advertised say 6 decks. Will one deck still work in these? Do these machines even work well? All the ones on Amazon have crappy reviews...

We use two decks - red and blue - and alternate so that the next dealer can shuffle while the current hand is in play.
yes, I have a shuffle tech that only shuffles on e deck of cards.
 
Am I the only one who does 3 riffles before the strip? I riffle, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, cut.
 
Am I the only one who does 3 riffles before the strip? I riffle, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, cut.

I actually add one more... riffle, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle riffle.

grimacing-face_1f62c.png
 
There are a lot of places that are adding an extra rifle behind the strip, so it goes: riffle, strip (top, bottom, top, bottom, top), riffle, riffle.
As advantage play progresses, and people find sequences, shuffles need to adapt and change also.
 
From the article:
Even casual gamblers understand that a deck of cards must be thoroughly shuffled to ensure everyone has an equal chance of winning based on the luck of the draw.

But how many shuffles is enough? One or two doesn’t seem adequate, but what about three, four or even five? Surely, that’s more than enough.

If you think so, fold your hand now.

The number of possible sequences in a standard deck of 52 cards is more than 8 x 10 to the 67th power, or eight followed by 67 zeros. Shuffling enough to ensure each sequence is equally possible thwarts players who might attempt to exploit discernible patterns that hang on after the conclusion of a previous hand in a poorly shuffled deck.

A century ago, a California chicken farmer was among the first to notice the advantage.

Charles Jordan would ask someone to shuffle and cut a fresh deck of cards a couple of times, then instruct the person to look at the top card, memorize it, insert it into the middle of the deck, and shuffle and cut the deck a final time. Mr. Jordan would then lay the cards face up and pluck the chosen one from the array. (Some versions have the card plucked from the middle and placed on the top or bottom of the deck, but the effect would be the same.)

Because the deck was fresh, it started out in numerical order by suit. A few shuffles weren’t enough to randomize the cards, and once they were laid out, a series of rising sequences would be visible. For example, the arrangement Ace, 5, 2, 3, 6, 7, 4 has two rising sequences interleaved: Ace, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 6, 7.

The secret of Mr. Jordan’s trick—which works about 84% of the time with three shuffles of a fresh deck, according to mathematicians Persi Diaconis and Dave Bayer—is that the chosen card, having been inserted into the middle of the deck, is now out of sequence. Mr. Jordan would simply trace the order of each suit to determine which card was out of place.

Most casual cards players under-shuffle, but it wasn’t until 1989 that Dr. Diaconis and Dr. Bayer proved there was a magic number of shuffles, what they called a cutoff, to randomize a deck.

For a deck of 52, they determined the cutoff is seven shuffles.

“If you shuffle less, the deck is far from random,” said Dr. Diaconis, who devotes two weeks to the mathematics of shuffling in a course he teaches at Stanford University. “If you shuffle a little more, it’s as close to random as can be.”

To understand what happens when the threshold is reached, imagine making marble cake with chocolate and vanilla batter.

“If you stir it a bit, you still see brown and white,” said Dr. Bayer, who teaches at Barnard College. “If you stir it more, you get tighter swirls, but you can still see both colors. At some point, it magically transitions to tan.”


Kneading dough also offers an apt illustration. If you fold the dough over once, you get two distinct layers. Fold it a second time and you get four. But if you fold it 10 times, you get 1,024 mingled layers.

In the case of randomizing cards, there is one important caveat: The seven-shuffle cutoff applies to an ordinary, and imperfect, riffle shuffle of 52 cards.

A riffle shuffle is when you divide a deck of cards in half, apply pressure to the back of the stacks with your forefinger and riffle each side with your thumbs to drop a few cards at a time onto a common pile. The number of cards that falls alternately from each side varies, and that imperfection helps ensure the randomness.

In contrast, a perfect riffle shuffle, with exactly one card dropping from each side until all the cards are down, wouldn’t randomize the deck, and after eight perfect shuffles, the original order of 52 cards would be restored, provided the deck is divided exactly in half and the card that was originally on the bottom drops first.

In the business world, casinos have the clearest interest in thoroughly shuffling cards—but they also have a competing concern.

“We consider productivity loss versus the associated risk of not shuffling completely randomly,” said Jason Sides, vice president of casino operations for the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas.

In other words, casinos want to minimize the amount of time dealers spend shuffling cards in order to maximize the amount of time customers spend gambling.

To facilitate this, casinos establish protocols for shuffling decks of different sizes, set time limits for the shuffles and conduct audits to ensure dealers adhere to the standards.

At the Golden Nugget, shuffling a single deck takes 18 seconds. A double deck takes 45 seconds. Six takes 120 seconds. And eight takes 150 seconds.

According to the mathematicians, machines don’t do a better job of shuffling cards, but Mr. Sides said they do have a benefit: “There is no downtime for shuffling.”

The odds are always with the house. Shuffle management is just one more ace in the hole.
 
Some of that is the reason that the box, strip from the top, top and bottom strip, etc are added to the riffles. You are no longer just ‘hoping the riffle is imperfect enough to ad randomization), but changing the sequence of the cards from here on out fornyoir following riffles.
 
In my view, this is almost totally silly talk. No doubt a pristine deck shuffled three times and cut once holds a lot of clues when examined face up. For sure a new deck (or a just "spaded" deck) needs to be examined, washed and shuffled thoroughly. But outside of that somewhat unique situation, I call BS.

Let's see what we "know" after a hand of hold'em.
1. We have seen our two cards.
2. We have seen zero to five board cards.
3. We have perhaps seen one or two other hands, maybe at showdown, maybe because the other player(s) showed us.
4. Unlike a bridge game, the players don't add order to the deck as part of the game. We don't lump together cards based or suit or rank. We also don't see every card in the deck. Each player sees two to roughly nine cards each hand - most often five or less cards.

The cards get jammed together with the muck, which often separates the cards we just saw but occasionally might not. Then the deck gets shuffled a few times, maybe stripped or boxed, and then cut. I accept the notion that the two cards from our previous hand are slightly more likely to be "close" together in a normally handled deck - but not much more likely.

A new hand is dealt. The hypothesis is an observant player, having seen two to nine cards the previous hand, can make an informed guess about what other cards are in play based on his/her own hand and the few other cards on the board. I would need to see a demonstration where a statistically significant advantage is displayed. Otherwise, count me as a skeptic.

Better to worry about marked, nicked, damaged cards in the deck -=- DrStrange
 
In my view, this is almost totally silly talk. No doubt a pristine deck shuffled three times and cut once holds a lot of clues when examined face up. For sure a new deck (or a just "spaded" deck) needs to be examined, washed and shuffled thoroughly. But outside of that somewhat unique situation, I call BS.

Let's see what we "know" after a hand of hold'em.
1. We have seen our two cards.
2. We have seen zero to five board cards.
3. We have perhaps seen one or two other hands, maybe at showdown, maybe because the other player(s) showed us.
4. Unlike a bridge game, the players don't add order to the deck as part of the game. We don't lump together cards based or suit or rank. We also don't see every card in the deck. Each player sees two to roughly nine cards each hand - most often five or less cards.

The cards get jammed together with the muck, which often separates the cards we just saw but occasionally might not. Then the deck gets shuffled a few times, maybe stripped or boxed, and then cut. I accept the notion that the two cards from our previous hand are slightly more likely to be "close" together in a normally handled deck - but not much more likely.

A new hand is dealt. The hypothesis is an observant player, having seen two to nine cards the previous hand, can make an informed guess about what other cards are in play based on his/her own hand and the few other cards on the board. I would need to see a demonstration where a statistically significant advantage is displayed. Otherwise, count me as a skeptic.

Better to worry about marked, nicked, damaged cards in the deck -=- DrStrange

This is what most people think, and that's ok, but this is also what gets a lot of casinos into HUGE trouble. The truth is that card sequencing lays a much MUCH bigger advantage to a player than counting cards. If I can sequence aces on a blackjack table, I know EXACTLY when they are coming out, and not when it's only slightly more likely that they will be coming out. This can tell me exactly what hands to be big on, and not just when to start increasing bets. So, I can play basic strategy for as long as I need to, even disguising it when I should be betting bigger via the count, and increase my bet when the Aces are coming.

Card sequencing, and shuffle tracking are far more advantageous to a player than counting.

So, how does that apply to poker? The same way... Say the board brings a couple aces, a player has an ace, and I can shuffle track or sequence the ace. If the sequencing comes to where the flop hits my key card, and that means the Ace should be the next couple cards, I know whether I have a higher chance of hitting it on the turn, river, and if it isn't there, it's burned. That means it isn't in one of my opponents hands. If I told you that there was an extremely low chance, say under 2% that I had an ace, and you were holding a King, wouldn't you bet into me on a board that had a couple aces?
Of course.

Sequencing is a very very real threat to a casino, which makes it also a real threat to any gambling game. A better shuffle protects against that. That's all there is to it.

You are right, that it's better to worry about marked, nicked, damaged cards in the general home game. But all of that talk does apply to poker, perhaps even more so when you have non-professional dealers, and aren't using shuffle machines. About a quarter of the reason casinos use shuffle machines is so that the players can't see the shuffle, the rest is so that the dealer isn't in control of the shuffle.
 
Proof is all I ask. Not a theoretical discussion of the risks of card sequencing, but some reason to believe it is worthy of examination.

Yes I can see a lot of stuff regarding shuffle tracking vis-à-vis black jack. The lack of rigor is noteworthy - lots of tales about how valuable it is, but no substantial math. We can agree that black jack shuffle tracking is more real than roulette systems or craps betting methods. Maybe shuffle tracking can give a statistically significant edge to a black jack player, maybe it can't. However we are considering the risks of weak shuffling in Texas hold'em. A situation where we see only a tiny fraction of the deck in a hand and shuffle every hand rather than play out the whole deck. In blackjack the dealer carefully stacks up the used cards in a clearly visible pile using a systemic method. In hold'em the cards are mashed into a muck and then shuffled.

There is a considerable body of work showing that it takes seven+ shuffles to reach a fully randomization of the deck. What I didn't find is any work that indicates a significant advantage for the observant hold'em player when the deck is shuffled less than that.

E.g. If I see my first card was the :as: and wonder where is the :ah:? At a full table, a random :ah: will be in one of the players hands 19/51 times, on the board 5/51 times and out of play 27/51 times. 53% out of play, 47% in play. Let's say instead, my last hand was :as: :ah: and the dealer is a lazy, sloppy shuffler. Just guessing, let's say the chance of the :ah: is "in play" - in a player's hand or on the board - is 50% rather than 47%. What difference does that make? And if someone wants to argue for a bigger percentage "edge" is there any data to confirm that notion? Even more to the point, can we look a card on the flop and make predictions about the turn or river which would be far more valuable?

We have already made a major concession by giving me one of the two cards from a previous hand - roughly an 8% chance. Or giving a key card on the flop - roughly 12% Now I know {perhaps} the other ace is a bit more likely to be involved with the hand. How much of an edge does that convey?

I offer no further math, just the conjecture that it doesn't matter enough to be worthy of concern. I'd love to see the two stage experiment that proves or disproves the idea that cards remain 'near' each other with weak shuffling (which I think is plausible) and that such information is of practical value (which I don't believe without some math & observation to back up.)

Anyone want to runs some tests to see? You could get to a 90% confidence with a hour or two of testing yourself - no cheating!

It would be worth the effort to know the truth -=- DrStrange
 
Proof isn’t going to come easily. All that is presented to us is theory crafting and theoretical discussion.

There is absolutely no doubt that it’s much more likely in Blackjack, and carni games than it is poker. But, that doesn’t mean that casinos don’t apply the security measures to poker because of the theory developed by straight percentages and numbers based on blackjack games.

Although much less likely, it’s still a viable reason.

I think you’re right to say that it isn’t enough to be worth of concern to the home game, general public...but it’s worthy of concern.
I don’t know if it’s indeed worthy of study in the general public’s eye. I was just tryin to give some insight on to why it’s there, and why it’s applied in casinos.
 

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom