Originally Posted by
redietz
Some final notes. I checked Paris, the Flamingo, and Harrah's tables. The Paris and Flamingo tables were roughly the same distances as Boyd and Palace Station, and I had no trouble seeing cards at the next table from the middle seat as long as the seat or two between weren't occupied. At Harrah's, the tables were 15-20 inches further, which actually made a difference, believe it or not. My sub 20/20 eyes could discern pips from paint on the far end of the adjacent table, of course, but I had a hard time actually identifying the particular cards. So for identifying specific cards, that appeared to be my limit. I do not know if lighting played a part, as I did not have a light measuring device with me.
What my brief survey suggested was that identifying specific cards could be done at many properties. Identifying specific cards was difficult at a particular distance for me. That distance was about 135 inches from middle seat to the center of the adjacent table. The cards beyond that midpoint were pips and paint to me. If two specific seats were occupied, there was an obstruction issue.
I haven't played blackjack in 30 years, so these are all just complete novice observations. For those who want to argue that it can't be done based on the blooming buzzing confusion of people moving and obstructions, or because tracking another table would be un-subtle, I don't know enough to have any opinion. For those who think the mental math or visual acuity makes it impossible, well, I do not agree with that. Any partial count, from what I understand, can be a benefit. And my eyes are pretty bad, so younger eyes can probably see the cards well enough.