RE: ShuffleTech (2)

by , Sep 7, 2008 | 7:10 am

ItsOverJonny wondered in comment below whether or not the new ShuffleTech noise machines auto-shufflers actually kept a count of the cards being riffled … I wasn’t sure (kinda assumed they did), so, because apparently this is what I like to do at 6:30 am on Saturday night/Sunday morn, I wrote to the folks at ShuffleTech (which happens to be based in the small village outside of Chicago where I was born) and they responded:

Dear Dan,

I’m happy to answer this or any other question, particularly for anybody from Shuffle Tech’s home town!

The ST-1000 does not count cards. Most of the machines that do in the casinos are also scanning the faces of each card, which enables those machines to not only count but also identify any missing card. You can understand how that could be abused in a private, unregulated environment: a clever programmer could reprogram the machine to identify the location of any particular card in a deck, and in the case of the casino machines (which function differently than Shuffle Tech) place certain cards in a certain position in the deck.

I hope this answer the question, and our reason for avoiding any mechanism or feature that could potentially be abused.

Best regards,
Rick Schultz

2 Comments to “RE: ShuffleTech (2)”

  1. ItsOverJonny

    Ummmm, Huh? A simple “No” would have been a much better answer. I would have gladly accepted “No – at this price point, we cannot implement this advanced feature into our product.” – that would be perfectly fair.

    But to say that they excluded this feature because it could lead to cheating/abuse is like saying, “No, your new car does not have seatbelts because the seatbelts might come to life and strangle you like a serpent. hey – it could happen! It’s for your own good.”

    I guess this really has nothing to do with what seems to be a great product, but I hate sales/sales support people who speak from their asses.

  2. Karridy

    Wow… I took it totally as intended. Then I started wondering what language I would have to write in to create such deck stacking code.

    Honestly, if you want to shoot holes in their response, I’d just say that they could have said, “The hardware, software, and testing and inherent certifications requirements associated with such a feature would have increased production cost to a point which we feel would be cost-prohibitive for our target customers.” :* <- That’s not an emoticon. It’s me talking out of my ass.