I’ve touched briefly on the implementation of automated shuffling machines (and continuous shuffling machines) in blackjack games, but let’s take a further look into how they really differ from playing from a typical shoe, and whether that affects those players using basic strategy.

To get right to the heart of it, technically speaking, a CSM (continuous shuffling machine) offers a slightly better situation for the blackjack player oddswise. It lowers the house advantage – a tad – and thus introduces the real debate.

We’re talking a fraction so small that to most players who don’t grind out session after session, the difference is negligible. However, you’re playing more hands with CSMs, and therefore, in theory, are actually losing more money. You’re losing you’re money more quickly, and in the end, the advantage still rests squarely with the house, so the expectation is that over the long run, unless you hit an incredible run of cards, you will lose regardless.

Now, I know some regular blackjack regulars, and many of them do prefer the CSM. They feel it provides for a more predictable mathematical probability, that it appears to even out the game, so to speak. What this means is they CSM offers true random distribution as opposed to a shoe, and goes a long way to eliminating some of the big runs of hot or cold cards a traditional shoe game can establish. This could be because they CSM is constantly feeding cards back at you, and has a full six (or eight, etc…) decks at the same time. This can balance typical player strategy, because you’re not adjusting to a gut feeling on the whim of the current state of a shoe.

Although, with a shoe, you get the knowledge of playing more against a “person” than a straight machine. And while it’s nothing like playing online, you never really, really know what’s going on in that machine behind closed doors.

My preference? Definitely a shoe, as I will try to hone my card counting game, and a CSM virtually eliminates that angle. And while I’m not heavily involved in shuffle tracking, obviously those players that do implement that strategy are avoiding a CSM table, as well. But if your game is straight strategy and nothing more, you might find the discipline of a CSM somewhat more to your liking, although the differences are likely not noticeable enough to be make or break for you.