So tthree, you have still not viewed the link?:joker:tthree said:
The article didn't say that exactly; I mean they didn't change the cards in the hands of the dealers. They were able to put cards into the game. Maybe, what they did was to insert a slug of cards when they cut the shoe. Then they would know a bunch of cards coming up, if that's what you mean. Pretty high risk. Requires speed, agility, perfect distraction and cover, and large brass b(lls.chessplayer said:
They used a simple modern holdout device >>aslan said:
The write-up made it appear that the magician was a player, not the dealer. In midi-baccarat only the dealer deals and turns the cards, therefore I deduced they were inserting cards into the shoe at the cut. However, this more detailed write-up clarifies that the magician was in fact the dealer. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2011/20110509-2.html Or am I wrong? If the player was allowed to receive cards in his hand, then I can see how this could happen, but as I said, I thought midi-baccarat controlled the cards by only allowing the dealer to touch them.zengrifter said:They used a simple modern holdout device >>
Antique holdout devices -
Wouldn't be quite so risky as getting caught in an old west saloon with one of these >>Sucker said:I can think of better ways to make money than to be so stupid as to actually wear a cheating device in a casino.
