Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer presents a false shuffle tracking system. Although professional gamblers do exploit non-random shuffles with legitimate shuffle tracking techniques, these are not the techniques provided in Patterson's Break the Dealer.</h1>
Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum Online Home Arnold Snyder Contact Information About Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum Online How to Win at Blackjack Arnold Snyder's Blackjack Forum, Trade Journal for Professional Gamblers Since 1981, New Issue Blackjack and Gambling Forums Moderated by Professional Gamblers Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer, a phony shuffle tracking book From Blackjack Forum Gambling Library Best Internet Casinos and Smart Online Gaming Gambling Books Recommended by Professional Gamblers Links to Gambling Sites Recommended by Professional Gamblers  
 

Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer: Arnold Snyder Responds

 
Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer, a phony shuffle tracking book
 
SCAMS, CONS, AND PHONY SYSTEMS : CONTENTS
Articles about Jerry Patterson and the TARGET System
TARGET gambling system and Jerry Patterson Off Target
    By Arnold Snyder
phony blackjack system and Jerry Patterson I Saw It With My Own Eyes
    By Arnold Snyder
<i>Break the Dealer</i> by Jerry Patterson Review of Break the Dealer, by Jerry L.
    Patterson and Eddie Olsen
    By Arnold Snyder
phony blackjack system by Jerry Patterson Response to Arnold Snyder's Review
    of Break the Dealer
    By Jerry Patterson
Articles about Leonard Benson and the Power Numbers Blackjack System
Power Numbers Blackjack by Leonard Benson John Leib Challenges
    Leonard Benson
    By Arnold Snyder and John Leib
Power Numbers Blackjack by Leonard Benson Leonard Benson Takes the Challenge
    By John Leib
Power Numbers Blackjack by Leonard Benson 22 Hours of Leonard Benson's
    Power Numbers Blackjack System

    By John Leib
Other Gambling Cons and Scams
Gambling scams and cons Reach Out and Fleece Someone
    By Arnold Snyder
Gambling scams and cons Flipped
    By Dunbar
NBJ Blackjack System by E. Clifton Davis, phony gambling system New Blackjack, Same Old Baloney:
    Review of E. Clifton Davis' NBJ System
    By Arnold Snyder with commentary by
    Boardwalker
 
 
 





 

Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer: Bad Information on Shuffles

By Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum VII #1, March 1987)
© 1987 Blackjack Forum

All of the "non-random" shuffle exploitation gurus including Jerry Patterson, Eddie Olsen and Doug Grant claim that Patterson's systems won't work vs. computer-random shuffles. Yet, none of you have ever published any computer simulation data on your systems in which the computer uses a non-random human-style shuffle.

There is nothing magical nor mystical nor impossible about having a computer shuffle like a human dealer. Instead of having a random number generator put the cards in order, one would simply program the computer to shuffle the cards like a human being would. You have it break the deck(s) into the approximate sized portions that a dealer would, mixing the cards by riffling, stripping and boxing the deck as is done in the casino. The computer can do this as perfectly or as sloppily as any human dealer would. Computers do what you program them to do.

The only computer studies I've seen on the effects of poor shuffling on the game of blackjack were the studies published by Stanford Wong in his Blackjack World newsletter in August, 1983. In Wong's study, he decided to use the poorest shuffling of all, i.e., no shuffle.

The cards were, of course, being slightly shuffled, because as hands were played by the computer, Wong had his computer pick the cards up and place them into the discard rack in the same order that a human dealer would do this. At the end of each shoe, he had his computer just start playing again with these discards. But this standard casino discard ordering was the only "shuffling" that Wong used.

He was using this computer simulation to test the theory that a multi-deck shoe would tend to stay "hot" or "cold" from shoe to shoe if the shuffle were inadequate. His finding was that there was no basis for this belief. Even with no shuffle, the mixing up of the cards caused by placing them into the discard rack as a dealer would was a sufficient shuffle to make the results of the following shoe unpredictable.

This test of Wong's did not, obviously, test all of the various theories about the possibilities of exploiting a non-random shuffle. Wong did not test the length or frequency of winning or losing streaks or compare such data to random results. He did not input any specific streak-based system to see if it would work. Wong tested just one theory and found it to be invalid.

In your response to Wong's review of the Bias Barometer, Jerry (elsewhere in this issue), you state that "a few of my students have performed their own independent research activities and written nonrandom shuffle programs to validate B.l.A.S." So my telling you that a non-random human shuffle is reproducable via computer is nothing new to you. You claim to have access to this type of computer data, yet you have never published any of it.

Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer: Even Worse on Playing Ace-Rich Decks

And what you have published, I disagree with. Although you describe some of the elementary methods of shuffle-tracking, which could be of great value to many shoe players, I disagree with your recommendations for how a player should use this data.

To even suggest that any shuffle-tracking player should attempt to create a shortage of aces, or bet low and play his hand as if in a negative count when in fact he is in the middle of a high card clump, strikes me as ignorant, regardless of the fact that the shuffle was non-random. This is the exact opposite strategy that was used by the highly effective concealable "Thor" computer, developed by Keith Taft many years ago for the express purpose of shuffle-tracking.

Keith performed many computer simulation tests of his Thor computer, using "casino-style" non-random shuffles, to develop his strategies. So unless you can produce some data which indicates Keith Taft was wrong—and Taft's methods are solidly backed by what is currently known about the mathematics of blackjack—my opinion is that you are very badly mistaken about how to get an advantage by shuffle-tracking.

Jerry Patterson's Break the Dealer And "Game Control Techniques"

As for my "missing the major point" of your book—that casinos are using "game control techniques" to keep players from winning—I don't think any publication has presented more information on this subject over the years than Blackjack Forum. From warnings and descriptions of preferential shuffles, Sam Case's and Steve Forte's exposes of card manipulation, etc., I publish everything of value on this subject that I have access to.

I simply fail to perceive what you describe as "game control techniques" to be what you and Eddie Olsen claim them to be. For instance, you warn players against the "strip" shuffle, especially in single-deck games. You accurately describe the stripping action which may be done by single cards or in clumps of cards, and you note that stripping the deck simply reverses the order of the cards or clumps of cards.

But you write about this common shuffling technique as if it is detrimental to players. It has long been a myth among gamblers that changing the "order of the cards" will change the players' luck. But I've never seen any scientific data to support this notion, and frankly, I don't believe it. The only players I know who were ever hurt by card stripping were players who were using concealed computers to track the shuffle, and whose computers were not programmed to be able to reverse the order of clumps of cards.

But stripping cards doesn't hurt human shuffle-trackers, who can easily reverse clump values. Nor does it hurt card counters, according to any accepted mathematical theory.

If you make a claim, you should back it up. Did you computer-simulate stripping a deck to test its effect? If so, why don't you produce the data? Why not tell us about it? Your whole book is filled with claims that strike me as superstitious nonsense. Let's see some facts.

And don't give me that "Blackjack-is-a-short-term-game" nonsense, as you say in your responses to both Wong and myself. Selling players methods for winning in the short run is a cop out. This is what phony system sellers have been doing for years with their betting progression systems, their Martingales, cancellations, stop-losses, double-ups, cut-backs, etc.

It's easy to create a betting system that will win most of the time in the short run. The simple Martingale (double after a loss - bet one unit after a win) will win 90% of short-run craps sessions if a player has $511 bucks in his pocket, and spreads his bets from $1 to $256 on the pass line. It would take 9 consecutive losses to wipe this player out. It only happens occasionally.

Unfortunately, a loss on the $256 bet, which will put the player $51 I behind on his "series," will occur slightly more frequently in the long run than this player's expectation of winning 511 series in a row. This player is going to lose 1.41% of all the money he bets in the long run, because that is the house's advantage. It doesn't matter that this player will win 90% of his short run sessions. He's a long run loser.

If your system does not produce a long run player advantage, the house will beat you in the end. They've got the time and money to sit through your system. The people who get most caught up in these foolhardy short run systems are compulsive gamblers. They're always talking about how they usually win. And they're always behind because of their few big losses.

As for your getting a 100%+ advantage over the casino, which you attribute to exploiting biases caused by non-random shuffles, which you support by claiming to have personally multiplied your bankroll in short run sessions, this is absurd. I often practice card counting on a little Radio Shack computer that deals a single deck out 75%, then "randomly" shuffles. I once multiplied a $100 bankroll to $31,000 in a few hours of play vs. the Radio Shack dealer via a mixture of incredible luck and foolhardy betting. (Unfortunately, I couldn't get Radio Shack to pay up.) But this phenomenal "winning streak" had nothing to do with biases caused by a human shuffle. There are numerous stories of real life incredible wins like these at casino crap tables, roulette tables, etc.

Jerry, I'd love to find out there was some validity to your TARGET system, or your Bias Barometer, or any of the other streak-based blackjack systems being touted by you or Eddie Olsen or Doug Grant or Charles Einstein, etc. I'd be amazed to find out your theories were right since they seem to violate accepted mathematical theories. But I wouldn't mind eating humble pie on this if there were something to it, as much as I have enjoyed making fun of you over the years.

So, will you please send me some non-random computer simulation data that might validate your claims? If you have this data, why don't you publish it? ♠


For the genuine ways professional gamblers win at blackjack and other casino games, see the following articles: Intro to Winning Blackjack, Intro to Blackjack Hole Card Play and How to Win at Roulette.

Also see the Blackjack Forum Professional Gambling Library for articles on how to win at slots, keno, and lotteries.

For a book on all of the ways professional gamblers beat blackjack, including shuffle-tracking, hole-carding, card counting, ace tracking, and other methods, see Blackbelt in Blackjack by Arnold Snyder.

Return to Blackjack Forum Online Home

 
© 2004-2005 Blackjack Forum Online, All Rights Reserved