magnifying glasses

Has anyone ever thought of wearing bifocals but having one of the halves a magnifying lens so that you could maybe watch one card through the shuffle. If you could watch an ace go into the discard tray and then just focus like crazy and not let that ace out of your sight all the way through the shuffle and then cut it to the front. Does that sound like something that could be done? This can't be an original idea but I have never heard of it.

I would like a set of techno glasses that could use some type of image recognition software to keep any count, shuffle track and check out cocktail waitresses x-ray style.

I wouldn't recommend messing with your eyes at the table. A lot of image processing is done by your brain so anything that distorts your vision is going to increase mental fatigue and errors.

Such glasses would be better used to catch the hole card. However, be aware that they are considered a "device" under the law. There have been lawsuits against players who used small telescope-type devices to spook dealers from behind.

-Sonny-

I would put checking out the cocktail waitresses first on the list. Get your priorities straight Brutus!

You guys should work in surveillance! :laugh:

-Sonny-

I'm sure its been done,but it wouldn't be that hard to mark certain cards with a substance that could only be seen with a special lense you are wearing.
But would the risk justify the reward?

I saw an expert practioner using high-magnifiers AFTER he made an imperciptable nick on the Aces. He was quite good at cutting himself the Aces. Syph was with me. zg

Been done, can probably be done better but never worth it.

The common answer to why discard trays are red, so the pit can see if the cards have been marked. As cards marked in the past could be seen with red tinted glasses, just make the discard tray red plastic and that was an end to that exact problem.

Today, I am positive there are better and harder to catch ways of marking cards. In my opinion, if you can not steal enough money doing this to retire in a style you love but have never been able to afford, it plain is not worth the risk of a feloney conviction, especially in Nevada.
You also have to understand that card marking can be an easily provable crime if you are caught at the table. A state paid vacation behind bars is just not for me.

ihate17

What would happen if: One player comes in, marks the cards, flat bets and doesn't play to the mark, then leaves. Second player comes in and plays to the mark.

Theory: the first player probably wouldn't be noticed, and if they were it would be hard to prove they violated the cheating statute because they weren't giving themself an advantage. The second player would have an advantage, but how would they prove he knew about the mark? They'd have to prove a link between the two players. It doesn't seem easy.

Nothing would happen generally

No link between the two players, no criminal case unless the casino tries to fabricate something against player #2. Of course if player #1 was caught in the act of marking, playing to an advantage or not, you can guess he would be prosecuted.
The answer then at least partially to your theory is this is one main reason why decks in pitch games (where the player touches the cards) are changed often. If nothing suspicious has happened, no one even looks at the old cards but by changing them they limit their exposure.
Every play in a casino that was so cheap they rarely changed the cards in a SD or DD game?

ihate17

Actually,since player 2 was caught taking advantage of the marked cards,wouldn't they just assume he marked them.All he could do is deny it.
A "No,Sir,Officer,Sir. I didn't steal this car,I was just driving it" type of scenerio.

That's the fabrication

There would be no dab on this player. There would be no video of his marking or bending of cards. They need something showing him doing it. Remember if you sit down at a single deck table and notice there is a bend, notch or some mark on an ace and use that information, you are guilty of nothing and the casino is guilty of negligence.

ihate17