Poker & The Machine

[snoopy1239]

In this month's Poker Europa, Nic Szeremeta discusses the introduction of the automatic shufflers and although he is in favour of these, he simultaneously fears that there will come a point where we have "one machine too many". In this regard, he highlights the automated and computerized table that many casino owners have been eying up as a potential cost saving investment (ie. no dealers to pay).

Is this a concern to anyone else, would you be bothered if it happened and do you think it will?

[Ironside]

i played on one in newcastle the fact it had a maximium buy in was good the fact you could see the chips in play in an easy countable way was good
the fact you could sit and face your opponant was good

wasnt keen on the interface but then i had had a few to drink

but overall i liked the machines and would welcome then in the cardroom no more arguements over pot sizes and no more dealer mistakes

[dealerFROMhell]

We've had a few discussions about this at The Vic.

Chips are simply too intergral to poker to replace. The size of someones stack is a visual indication of their dominance (wether it be from luck or good play) and is paramount in tournament poker (though not so much in cash). They also, as i'm sure you're all aware, help when it comes to reads.

They'll probably be introduced for the lower limit cash games, say £20 - £50 sit down, and maybe even single table staellites, but not when it comes to competitions and anything above a £100 sit down.

They'll still look well cool though!

[Graham C]

A dealer does more than deal though, they have to make decisions if there's a conflict in interest. 

Even though I don't get to play with dealers that often, I don't like the thought of a machine chucking the cards at me.  What happens if it jams or something like that?  Could take ages to fix

[dealerFROMhell]

Silo's bang on.

The dealer is there, among other things, to relay information to the tournament supervisor in the face of a dispute. They are, or shoulf be at least, at all times impartial.

Did he tell his cards to his mate?

Did she just say to him "Let's check it down"?

Were those two people discussing a deal without involving the other guy?

None of the above can be determined by a computer.

[snoopy1239]

Would no1 miss the rifling of chips, the all-in push of your stack or praying as you squeeze your second card?

If I wanna play on a computer, I'll stay at home.

[Graham C]

Oh, I only read the no dealers bit and automatic shufflers and put the two together.

No cards and chips would be aweful, not going for that at all.  I'm trying to play more live poker, not go out to play on the computer.

[Moskvich]

I don't think anyone who plays would really want to see the introduction of the computerized version, it'd kill the card room atmosphere and interaction between the players. As snoopy says, everyone would just stay at home. I just can't see any of the big casinos being able to introduce them - players would just stay away or go elsewhere.

The automatic shufflers are brilliant, and should be everywhere... My only worry would be that while they work in Vegas because the casinos there wouldn't dream of running games without dealers, their introduction here could mean that fewer and fewer dealers are employed by cardrooms. Self-deal tournaments and small cash games are less of a 'big deal' for players if they don't have to do the shuffling themselves, which could mean they've got less to complain about and the cardrooms have less reason to employ staff. Think how many more hands you'd get each level in a self-dealt comp though...

[Ironside]

Silo's bang on.

The dealer is there, among other things, to relay information to the tournament supervisor in the face of a dispute. They are, or shoulf be at least, at all times impartial.

Did he tell his cards to his mate?

Did she just say to him "Let's check it down"?

Were those two people discussing a deal without involving the other guy?

None of the above can be determined by a computer.

half the time the dealers one of the players anyway

[Paullie_D]

I think it's important to recognise that there are a number of issues here.

Firstly, automatic shufflers...I'm in favour but only the BIG casinos can afford them because they run around, I believe, $15,000 each (including the table).

The US casinos can afford this because they get more hands per hour and thus increase their rake. UK casino's can't rake (yet) and so there is no real incentive for them to introduce them. After all, they are already paying the dealer (if there is one).

Plus the Vegas casino dealers have a pretty good union.

Secondly, we have the computerised table (PokerPro) which completely replaces the whole table experience. No chips, no dealer. etc. I also played on these machines in Aspers in Newcastle and apart from a few niggles (no drinks holders for one) and the interface (which was a little clunky) they were fine.

Then we come on to where these machines can be used, I'm not talking location, I mean Tournament / Cash.

Cash is fine and they work well. However, until they can network them (and it'll come one day) they would be restricted to SNGs (which would be easy enough to set up) and not tournaments.

There are distinct advantages to these machines, no dealer mistakes, pots automatically split, multiple games (HE/Omaha/Stud) without the dealer needing to know how to deal them, etc which represent the convergence of online poker with the live, casino experience.

Wave of the future, guys...brace yourselves

[AdamM]

I played on several computerised tables at the ICE show at Earls Court last year. absolutely hated it.

watching players handle chips and cards gives you extra information.
it takes extra time to look at the action on the screen, then look up to see the player the action is on, by which time you've missed any info going and the action has moved on.
I like poker chips
I like cards

I don't particularly object to automatic shufflers but I also don't particularly see the point. assuming we're talking about tywo pack of cards in use, one in the shuffler and one in play, It might shave a second or two off a hand which might add one hand to an hour level but I would think there was more than that much variance between dealers anyway

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Paullie_D]

It might shave a second or two off a hand which might add one hand to an hour

We are talking about the difference between a dealer dealt table where the dealer has to shuflle a single deck and a table with an automatic shuffler.

I don't think there are many dealers who can properly shuffle a deck in less than 10 seconds. That's a minute every six hands or, say, 2 minutes an orbit. I 'd say that adds one hand per orbit.

On a raked cash game that adds up....hence the reason they are so very prominent in Vegas.

[AdamM]

shimmy, three riffles, one cut, another rifle, final cut, 15 secs max

[Paullie_D]

shimmy, three riffles, one cut, another rifle, final cut, 15 secs max

Exactly...not 1 second per hand gained then...that 15 seconds a hand adds up to a lot more hands an hour whether tournament or cash

[fearisthekey]

Would no1 miss the rifling of chips, the all-in push of your stack or praying as you squeeze your second card?

If I wanna play on a computer, I'll stay at home.

Yeah, for me it's exactly that.
The only thing I miss from internet play is ready knowledge of stack sizes.
'How much you got left mate?'
'YOU MAKE A MOVE I'M ALL IN!'
'I was just wondering'
'YOU MAKE A MOVE I'M ALL IN!'
'I'm all in'