Ahhh, just looked at his dice thread and posts...

You refer to a floor man so I will assume you are now talking about a casino environment. Your explanation of possible contingencies does not show that marked cards are safer than using a shift or other sleight of hand (which has its own contingencies if suspected)... and now, as per your deck change scenario, your readers are on the way to surveillance to be scrutinized.
Marked cards have been detected and prosecuted successfully in the past. Perhaps some one here knows of anyone who was ever charged successfully with executing a shift?

The cheat can mark cards in a variety of ways. The most common way of marking cards is by putting a nail mark into the card by squeezing the card between the thumb and forefinger. Other methods include crimping the corners, grease marks, dirt marks, etc. If you play a lot of live poker then you will probably have been involved in a game where cards have been marked. It doesn’t always mean that someone has attempted to cheat, as even the best playing cards can get marked naturally. Even marking one card in the accidental manner during or before the game will give one a small advantage. The cheat uses such makings because if they are discovered they can be put down to the accidental.

For the enterprising student, in the college poker game, which we are discussing, where beer is being drunk and hot dogs are being eaten at the table, it should be no problem to apply the accidental careless making system, as described by Erdnase on page 140.

As for prosecutions: People have been nailed and prosecuted and hurt etc for all sorts of ways that they have used to cheat at cards, including manipulation and marked cards etc. The prosecutions come from casino’s, whereas in private games you get rough justice. Loosely speaking, in private games the victim needs no proof. All he needs is to believe that you have cheated him and he will then decide what, if anything, he is going to do about it. I doubt very much that he will phone the police and have court case about a shift in a private game, or anything else related to cheating for that matter. A shift in the casino poker game, and most private cash poker games today, is pretty redundant as the croupier cuts the cards. So I can’t see a prosecution arising for a shift in particular. Least not in poker games that is. Maybe in casino Black Jack Or Baccarat games perhaps? But as I don’t play them house games myself so I don‘t know about them.

Yes cards can pick up flaws in a game. However, to have a well defined advantage you need well defined marks that you can read... and depending on the game you will need a minimum # of cards to be marked to yield an advantage.

Let's take the first way you mention: nail nicking. You have now changed from introducing readers into a game (which was your first comment) to marking while playing... even more dangerous and still leaving hard evidence.

You have also changed the conditions once again from the casino environment to college games. You simply dismiss any possible consequence of using marked cards. What was it really that you meant when you first said readers were safer than a shift? Safe from what if there is no real consequence of cheating. Sleight of hand is just as deniable as a gaff... more so.

Blanket statements about how a lot of people have been caught for all sorts of cheating doesn't cut it as an argument... and without any examples I must assume this is based on your opinion/imagination.

Sorry Tommy but the fact is that no gaff is "safer" than a sleight when it comes to cheating... no matter how active your imagination may be.

Of course, I would never encourage using sleight of hand or marked cards in a poker game for money. But, in theory, in a 7 handed game, sleight of hand can only be used 1/7th of the time unless you play with a partner.

If you hold-out, then you can "work" more often, even you if don't deal...but, you are "dirty" with the held out card(s).

On the other hand, with a marked deck..they are there all the time and no one should know who rung the card(s) in.

In this way, you can do magic and entertain your friends in the mock poker game for hours.

The question is about risk; but you make a good point about practicality...

Although I am not sure about this:


The ideal that friends will maintain interest in a fake game with no real money to win or lose for hours so you can show off your prowess without explaining why you are winning is just more imagination.

Im not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure he was being facetious

The average kitchen table seats about six but player dealt games are at nightmare at an Hold’em table, which are 8 to 9 foot long. Today there are lots of these Hold’em tables about as the craze for the game as resulted in fellows buying and building their own. Normally in a player dealt Hold’em table game its so difficult for the players to deal that the player in the dealer offers to deal, like in a casino, with a button, but with the dealer playing a hand. Normally in such games there is a cut and normally it’s the same guy on the dealers right that cuts all the time. I know that is not the proper procedure but that nonetheless is what often happens. So to start with you and your partner want to be getting them seats if you can. So you will be dealing all the hands and your pal will cutting all of them. However these player dealt games are somewhat beyond my experience. I have seen it happen in the little casino comps where the casino were short of dealers at the start and the players were asked to deal themselves.

As for readers as I said above the student can put any accidental work into the deck before the game and switch the deck in before the game, which means if they discover marks etc its not undeniable and irrefutable proof of foul play. For instance one takes two decks one a slightly lighter shade than the other then accidentally mix them while playing a two deck game called Kalooki with them before. That has happened in casino cash games and when the “mistake” was eventually discovered the casino apologized and simply changed the deck and apart from some whining about their clumsy security it was no big deal. Far be it from me to suggest fading. Especially for some variants of poker.

Reading and playing marked cards by the way can be something of an acquired skill. Nothing is easy and totally without risk what ever you use.

Expertmagician,

Man, you don't need sleight of hands to cheat a game! Collusion, tracking, natural peeks (goose necking and all that kind of stuff), miscounting chips (during chip up for instance), etc. There are dozens of "techniques" involving no sleight of hand at all.

tommy,

you've got mail...

Hi Dowser,

I've been following your gallant defence of sleight of hand at the card table with interest and as a sleight of hand enthusiast myself I'm all for it. However, the difficulty with this kind of discussion is its generality. In my somewhat limited experience of the world of cheating, the one aspect that stands out for me are the enormous variation in cheating strategies. The thing that seems to determine the type of cheating used is a combination of the skill, experience and preference of the cheat combined with the conditions of the game. If the cheat is an expert bottom dealer, he will probably work with a partner and find a game that 'plays' to his advantage. The expert at reading marked cards would do something similar. Each would probably run risks but that is the nature of cheating. The art is to develop suitable outs or become crippled in the attempt. Under these specific conditions, I would argue that its hard to draw firm conclusions about the relative risks of specific techniques. Strategy, skill, experience, technique and clever execution are inextricably linked at the card table.

Regards,

Paul

There is no need in defending sleight of hand in general when no one is attacking it in general. Try instead defending the shift in this poker game.

Hmmmm...you are absolutely right Tommy. That will teach me to post late at night after a large glass of wine. The shift is extemely problematic although there are a few shifts that reportedly worked in the old days. I remember the discussions on the usability of the shift on the Cardshark forum. Those contributers with real world experience of cheating strongly argued against the move as too risky. The main alternatives were the use of a brief, working with a partner and/or using paper.

Yours sheepishly,

Paul

All true Paul... but I just can't agree with the earlier statement that paper is "safer than a shift"... or any other sleight. (Well perhaps the glide )

As to it's success or strength as a technique I have made no argument. It may be a generality, but when it comes to risk It seems the difference between a solid- material piece of evidence and no evidence or proof at all is too big of a difference for anyone to argue away.

When marked cards are used, proof of the act exists... ( so much so that the act not even be committed... for charges to be laid if recent events are to teach us anything) the proof is in the hands of all the players in the game... whether or not this evidence is detected, understood and effectively used to confront, prosecute, or maim the guilty party is inconsequential...

The point is that the possibility for being proven undeniably guilty exists when readers are employed. This is not the case with sleights as they only last a fleeting moment and leave no trace or signature. Even when caught on camera their is the possibility for "plausible deniability" that does not exist with readers (except in the best case, overly optimistic, scenarios laid out previously in this thread). I saw a team get away with a million dollar baccarat slug because the courts could not prove the slug was not just a sloppy shuffle and that the dealer was not just poor at his job.

I am aware of ways that organized teams that use rough methods like blatant past posting have compensated for the short comings of their methods but that still doesn't remove the shortcoming. The expendable pawn that does the dirty work rarely gets more than a ridiculous fraction of the take but accepts the majority of the risk and in the case of marked cards, the operator who puts readers into a game has introduced damming evidence into the hands of his opponents.

Thanks for joining the discussion Paul...

I suspect the shift in poker is not as much of an issue it used to be. You can just cut the deck yourself. Because of televised games and casino procedures many of todays average hold'em players don't truly understand the importance of the cut. They assume the cut card somehow makes the procedure legit'. The person shuffling can usually cut and if you want to discourage any objections: once the shuffle is finished...while conversing and not paying particular attention, just pick up that very professional looking plastic cut card and jauntily pitch it to the table in front of the deck and in a solid "matter of fact" motion: cut the deck onto the card. Done in the right manner... only the boldest and the triple sharpest will ever interrupt you so as to voice their objections... (hey that's how they do it in the casinos). This is why you are more likely to get away with cutting your own shuffle than you would have in the past. If one person who has no "monetary interest" in the game (except perhaps tips) acts as the dealer for every round and a puck goes around the table, then the dealer cut is even more acceptable and likely to PASS.
I must now admit that I am basing this opinion about the shift not being as important as it once was on more logic than experience. But that doesn't mean I have zero experience. I'm not big on poker, and have only sat in a few private games, however cheating did occur in one of those games and the cut was handled exactly as I've described.

I've seen many shifts in the past. Very bad ones! 100% were attempted in loose, very loose environment. For instance, it's 4am, everyone is half-drunk, no one is paying attention and there is a lot of talking, etc. Friendly games and loose context.

For the last 5-6 years, I'd say that I consider the new players more clever and aware than the ones in the past. As Dowser say, because televised games. Cut cards, plastic cards, more or less strict procedures... Oh, don't get me wrong, there are still loose contexts! And often, they use "strict" procedures but badly. What I mean is that it has became more difficult, IMHO!, to perform some moves. OK, signaling, SD, stacks, etc. are still possible. But bottom deal or bold shifts, well... I talk for myself but I wouldn't try a shift anymore, even in a $25 friendly games. More and more players pay attention to the dealer, I guess that more and more players are concentrated on the game too.

To be honest, very few players know something about marked cards. Once in a while anyway you meet a guy riffling the backs... But it's frequent to meet players asking for a deck change from the minute the first tiny mark appears on one card back. Usually we just change the card.

The average table used in the games I play are not very large. When you are 8 or 9 guys sat, some moves are just impossible. Sometimes, you even have to get up to deal the round! A shift in such conditions, well, I'd like to see that.

Just one more anecdote. In the past many pseudo-advantage players were peeking indexes while slowly riffling the deck. Try to do that today guys! I can tell you many new players pay attention to that.

You are 100% correct...it all depends upon how greedy you are and if you want to hit and run or grind it out slower....and obviously how knowledgeable or alert your "audience" is.

Clock you're good but today you have to sit in the corner with the "Dunce Cap" on. Why? Only God is perfect therefore no one is 100% all the time. Readers no matter how good an individual is "he nor me" have all the sense (all the answers); read, play and make your own judgement calls because there are always exceptions to the rule and people giving statements that are not always true.

Think about it...this so called Erdnase shift was done way before Erdnase ever came out with his book which mean players/suckers have been being flashed on accidentally for over a century now. If Clock's statement is true then all of the cheaters who lived and died before Clock was born had no sense at all. All of us cheaters need to immediately stop cheating because any so called accident such as getting a hanger while dealing seconds or bottoms, flashing or an unnatural movement or gesture mean we must find another game or another place to play; this is a bunch of CRAP talk.

Readers there comes a time when people get so good they think that their ***** don't stink; this is not true (Clock this statement is not specifically pointed at you but to perfectionist in general). We are all human therfore we all make mistakes at one time or another that's why the cheats of today and yesterday did the shift and got the money and those who didn't like it tried to invent other shifts; and this why we have so many today.

Now regarding the jiggle pass inwhich Mr. Z spoke of this is nothing but an Erdnase pass with a jiggle which looks exactly the same at the card table except for a straightening up gesture. If this pass would have worked I would not have taken the time out to invent my (McMullen's "Infinity Pass") I would have used the Jiggle Pass instead. Trust me on this one.

Mr. Z. If possible can you make a video demonstrating the jiggle pass with both hands above the table to show the readers that what you're talking about really works? Thanks in advance.

Respectfully

Doc

Doc,

I think Z was kidding about the jiggle pass. I've myself seen horrible shifts attempted (and some were successful!) but a jiggle pass...

I'm glad you talk about when we fail. Some days it's merely impossible to move. Magicians always think that some cheats are artists always 100% sure and perfect. It's not and it's impossible. Sometimes the context is bad, sometimes the material is bad, sometimes the deck is bad, sometimes hands condition are bad. Sometimes the cheat is simply not in good form.

Just an humble example coming from my modest experience. I remember one fantastic night when my hands were in awesome condition. Really, I've dealt countless seconds and I didn't have to use a cool glass or any other subterfuge. I think I could have dealt billions of seconds that day. Why? No one knows! Room temperature? Last week, I got hangers on my three first SD. I stopped right away. Why? The deck (crappy chinese plastic one)? Tired? Not concentrated? Who knows. That's life.

You know the same thing happened to me as well. I'm currently here in Houston Texas and it was very muggy the night before last, this prevented me from feeling the punch beside the fact that I too was getting hangers (muggy temperature makes your thumb wet and sticky likewise high air conditioning and coldness prevents you from pushing the card over and sometimes not snatching it).

Was I suppose to quit and find another game or get the money? For the record I got the money even though it wasn't as much as I would have liked it to be (it paid for my hotel bill).

Doc

Doc,

I never said there hasn't been any excellent single-o "shifters". Filipino Freddy was one of them.

But here's where you puzzle me, Doc. If you are working with a partner, why in the world would you NOT lay a brief and have a nice fair cut (your partner hits the brief). You are, essentially, eliminating a move completely. What's better than carrying the cut and immediately pitching the cards?

In a single-o situation, a shift may be appropriate. But if you are running up hands/dealing bottoms, why work by yourself in the first place?

Possibly, you ARE working in the worst possible situations (single-o, shifting, and dealing bottoms to yourself). If you have to pay your bills you have to pay your bills. That does not, however, make it a wise to play in a game under those conditions.

It seems like we are on two different planes here. I'm talking 'best possible scenario' , you're talking 'pay the bills'.