1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
Three
The correct analogy is you have a deck with no useful information gleaned from looking at the back of the cards at 2 different tables. At one table a player daubs all the 7, 8 and 9 so he knows when they are coming out of the shoe next. At the other table a player tells the dealer how to turn the cards so he can tell whether or not the next card is a 7, 8 or 9 before it is dealt. Both players have created the same marked deck from the same unmarked deck by definition of what a marked deck is (a deck that you can tell information about any card by looking at its back). They both have the same information gleaned from looking at the backs of the cards engineered by the players. The question is, why do some people want to deny that by directing the turning of the cards a marked deck was created when it is a marked deck by the definition of a marked deck? The two situations create the exact same situation for the player to use information gathered from looking at the back of the card. Why are people so stupid that they can't understand something that is true by definition? That is a one line proof in math. I know when we had a one line proof by definition situation in college I was the only one to solve it. Everyone felt like idiots when I put the solution on the grease board. Every gaming board has using a marked deck causes results to be invalid and in fact the one that manufactured the marked and caused it to be used in play to be guilty of a felony. Ivey and his team got lucky that the DA didn't pursue the felony angle. The DA probably thought justice was served by returning the ill gotten gains.
The casino approved the conditions under which the game was played. Anyhow you must feel quite special to be as smart as you are and everyone else being so stupid.
Bookmarks