Actually, there is a video embedded in the wired article about halfway down - there's an ad stuck on at the beginning, so you'll have to sit through that, but the video is a demonstration of the basics of the cheating technique. The video included there is a little slapdash, and we are hoping to record a more professional and explanatory video soon, which we'll share here if it happens.

Because you are not a programmer. You don't give a damn about all that. It is obvious you want the code so that you can do this at your home game. Your probably sent him a DM under a new screen name offering $$$ for it.

Thanks!

I haven't programmed in over 40 years, so I wouldn't consider myself a programmer. Is anyone who's not a programmer a cheat? If you invented the plane and I asked to see it fly, you would interpret that as me trying to steal your design?

Are you a troll or have you suffered too many punches to the head?

This was my only question... and you answered it, but I want to ask this same question another way.

You mentioned that these techniques probably have been known to cheaters prior to your work.

Do you feel like your work allows you to say that there is a 100% chance that someone, somewhere has exploited these machines in the wild, or is the probability less than 100%? (Such as 25-50%)

This question wasn't directed at me, but find the Texas thread and Joey Ingram interview, it is about the closest you are going to get to 100% or some type of perfect accuracy that a shuffle machine at a poker table was exploited.

Sent you a dm

Nice job on the reverse engineering. My favorite part was how they added the improved code "signing" algorithm (HMAC) and botched the implementation. Don't implement an algorithm that already exists off the shelf.

If the cut doesn't even matter.....then this is a true, "smh, I knew something seemed off" moment for many of us who had faith in the integrity of casino poker....I presume. I played dealer shuffled home games for years, and more recently DM2 casino tables, and I have a decent enough math background and memory to see some truly odd statistical events and raises/calls that people wrote off at the table as variance when the machine is involved.

To answer that question above, it has to be 100% that it has been compromised numerous times. I would imagine those that are aware and using this to cheat are wondering how it has taken this long for the information to get out.

The person who stated the floors "don't know the rules, aren't good poker room managers" etc. This would be an amazing cover for themselves if it ever did blow up in their face....few people seem to agree with me on the point of why not act oblivious, it makes you look less guilty in the event of investigation.

Nice.

Thank you to you and your team for doing this work.

The guys doing the solver stuff on the machine. What is this device in mounted in the cup holder and as the iPad comes off the tray there is an iPhone directly under it.

Could more normal explanations obviously but it’s always tweaked my brain as no one ever had an answer.

The top circle looks to be around the cuts in the dealer tray that holds the cards. Maybe there's a phone in it. So what?

I don't see an iPad, but that device next to the card shuffler is clearly some sort of thermonuclear device; . . RUN !!!


Seriously, this appears to be a frame from a video. It doesn't show anything by itself. You'd have to link to the video, with appropriate time stamp, to put it in context.

J4o.

https://www.benjoffe.com/holdem/

This link shows how you could stack a deck and it can be cut anywhere once and it will force a winner to a desired position.

With all the information we have we need to make live poker safer. Did any gaming board review these findings and take any protective measures to protect customers?

I would think the simplest and easiest implementation would be once a deck comes out of the machine, riffle once then cut. Also to have IR cameras at the table to make sure the decks are legitimate and not IR decks or juiced decks.

The silence in the thread speaks volumes, and the overall response I get from tables whenever I have brought up the subject (on tables with the deckmate used) is extremely nonchalant almost as if most rec players wouldn’t care, but obv not surprising.

Why would you expect a table full of strangers to take your word for it? I wouldn’t take your word for it and I would assume you’re just a paranoid bad beat story teller unwilling to accept shortcomings in your own game so you blame the shuffler.

I also think this would be for rec and pro players alike so I’m not sure why you’re so snarky toward the recs on this one.

[QUOTE=Dr. Meh;58390320]Why would you expect a table full of strangers to take your word for it? I wouldn’t take your word for it and I would assume you’re just a paranoid bad beat story teller unwilling to accept shortcomings in your own game so you blame the shuffler.

I also think this would be for rec and pro players alike so I’m not sure why you’re so snarky toward the recs on this one.[/QUOT

Only fools and cheaters deny the truth. Which are you?

[QUOTE=Polarbear1955;58390869] Wat

Given that 52! (the number of unique combinations of a deck of cards) is larger than the number of atoms in the sun sorting the deck via a single random number is almost certainly not how they do it. They probably randomize each card selected.

I saw you shuffling your checks with your right hand. Can you do that with both hands?

Not sure why you think it is so difficult. We know for a fact DMII can put cards in at least one order…sorted. By suit and rank. Any random order would not take any longer. And easy to build a tree to store and collect info. If the RND is working nothing else need be randomized.

Because someone would need to decide which 2^x decks would be represented, then write them all in code, etc.

Instead you do a fraction of the work for coding, and get all possible combinations, instead of doing more work and not getting all of them.

"If the RND [sic] is working" -- there's the rub. It would take a CSPRNG with a period of larger than 2^226, and one would need to seed it with 226 bits of entropy, somehow.

It's do-able, but it is non-trivial.